Are we really fighting WWIII?

[NaplesX]

or... if we are, will failure in Iraq lead to a bigger bloodier battle elsewhere?

Senator Kennedy feels we should pull out as fast as possible http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050127/D87SHQI01.html this view is also held by many here, it would seem. Is there any wisdom in such a movement?

Following his advice, which has been consistent if nothing else, would spell sure failure for the US and any chances for democratic rule in Iraq. It would also spell sure victory for AQ.

And remember the four brits that were released? Well it appears that they were AQ trained and worse:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,12077023-23109,00.html

I can't find the story but there is a judge that dropped charges against terrorist recruiters, calling them "guerrillas".

I see a growing sympathy for the terrorist thugs that brought us Afghanistan and 9/11 and the current mayhem in Iraq. Now, I know that many here will say that US/UK tipped over the apple cart or stirred up the hornet's nest. Wether you believe this to be true or not, the apple cart or hornet's nest was there already. I personally think 9/11 was a bigger factor, but what do I know?

Terrorists/insurgents are threatening beheadings of the local populace if they exorcise their newly established rights. Can anyone here defend that kind of flagrant disregard for human rights?

This election IMO, in itself, has turned out to be a MAJOR battle in the WOT. Is anyone really hoping it is a failure, as it seems has been the case all along?

Just trying to envision the results of different actions.

Any thoughts?

[MarcUK]

The terrorists have already won.

When we started acting like them, imprisoning innocent people with no trial or evidence, passing partiot laws, introducing ID cards, running idealogical wars, restricting freedoms, etc. we became the enemy we despise.

We now have a climate of fear, intolerance and ignorance. Fundamentalism is rearing its ugly head in our own backyard.

What is the difference between the idealogical fundamentalism we are supposed to be fighting, and the idealogical fundamentalism that justifies it?

Both belong to a group of people who think they are blessed by God, and fighting a righteous justified war against evil, for their very existance.

And you know what, we started it.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by MarcUK
The terrorists have already won.

When we started acting like them, imprisoning innocent people with no trial or evidence, passing partiot laws, introducing ID cards, running idealogical wars, restricting freedoms, etc. we became the enemy we despise.

We now have a climate of fear, intolerance and ignorance. Fundamentalism is rearing its ugly head in our own backyard.

What is the difference between the idealogical fundamentalism we are supposed to be fighting, and the idealogical fundamentalism that justifies it?

Both belong to a group of people who think they are blessed by God, and fighting a righteous justified war against evil, for their very existance.

And you know what, we started it. So who is right about their efforts?

They both can't be right? Perhaps they are both wrong...

But beyond that, what will happen if terrorists win? ... how about if the US/UK wins?

History leans toward the US. War is brutal and requires being brutal to win. The US has won a lot of wars, and yet the brutality didn't continue past the war period.

The citizens of the collective "democracy" and those on the losing end of the stick prosper and are given basic human rights, as opposed to what happens when terrorists "win".

I say we (I mean any country that embraces freedom) are fighting WWIII and I am not sure that everyone sees it for what it really is.

As far as who started it, does that really matter now? I personally think, it's time to think about winning the war.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by NaplesX
So who is right about their efforts?

They both can't be right? Perhaps they are both wrong...

But beyond that, what will happen if terrorists win? ... how about if the US/UK wins?

History leans toward the US. War is brutal and requires being brutal to win. The US has won a lot of wars, and yet the brutality didn't continue past the war period.

The citizens of the collective "democracy" and those on the losing end of the stick prosper and are given basic human rights, as opposed to what happens when terrorists "win".

I say we (I mean any country that embraces freedom) are fighting WWIII and I am not sure that everyone sees it for what it really is.

As far as who started it, does that really matter now? I personally think, it's time to think about winning the war.

Nobody ever won any war. Winning world war I, caused WW2, WW2 caused the terrorism we have today. At the moment the terrorists are winning 'WW3'. If they win that will start WW4 when we regroup and fight back, if we win, they will regroup in 50 years and start ww4.

[pfflam]

The terrorists have allready won and Kennedy is wrong about immediate withdrawal.

We really do need to try to broker some form of international system, utilizing trained Mulsim troops . . ..which also probably wouldn't work.

Next, we should try to think about partitioning Iraq . . .
which also probably would not work and would create horrible strife.

The problem is is that this was not a battle in the WOT until Bush made it one . . . the apple-cart being turned over is an incredibly deep catastrophe: a chinese finger-trap of immense complexity the forces of radical Islamism were not winning recruits in droves . . . in fact, if you look at the very large public outcry against Fundamentalists in Algeria you would have seen that actual Fundy Terrorists were losing favor among the majority of Muslims in the ME --rapidly loosing favor . . . which is why they decided to focus almost exclusively on the United States
(I remember the 'Press Conference' that OBL had when he declared war overt war on the US . . . I remeber it clearly . . . why didn't Bush pay more attention . . .. what's the real reason for the 'intelligence failure'?!)

Then, BAM, Bush does EXACTLY what OBL said he would . . . and does it complete with torture, decadence and lies
. . . if you were devout would a leader (not a co-religionist) that appeared to use those tactics in order to invade a co-religious country seem a little 'evil' perhaps . . . or even just misguided?!

Bush fucked up on a scale that will seem unbelievable when the dust settles and hindsight lets us look back without partisan passions.

anyway, if the two solutions above do not work . . . and I can't imagine that they would . . . then immediate pull-out.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by MarcUK
Nobody ever won any war. Winning world war I, caused WW2, WW2 caused the terrorism we have today. At the moment the terrorists are winning 'WW3'. If they win that will start WW4 when we regroup and fight back, if we win, they will regroup in 50 years and start ww4. The conditions set by the Versailles Treaty casued WW2.

If we 'win' then . . . then . . . the battle will move elsewhere . . . with the continuation of an upsurge in terrorist actions . . .
. . . eventually, Muslims will get sick of the murder by these fanatic idiots and they will themselves put a stop to it.

If we 'lose' then they will have a larger base from which to set up shop . . . however, the Iraqis will want to set up a Government . ..and this will cause more terror . . . and eventually, the Muslims will get sick of the murdering bastards and put an end to it . .

only slightly do I imagine that there will actually be the rise of an Islamic State born out of the Fundamentalist's ideas . . . UNLESS we keep fuucking up on the scale that we are fucking up now!!!

Which, if Bush remains in office without being brought to trial for his crimes, will definitely happen.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by pfflam
The conditions set by the Versailles Treaty casued WW2.

hey, im simplyfying it, into its most simplistic terms.:)

[e1618978]

I think that calling this WW III is kind of wierd.

Look at the statts for WW II - the war on terror
has killed what - 150,000 people? There are total
about 300K soldiers involved including the terrorists?
10 countries, most of which are very little countries?

It would have to kill a whole bunch more people to earn the title
WW III. Just the USSR had 6 million dead and 14 million wounded
in WW II.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004619.html

[MarcUK]

calling it WW3, is just the latest Churchian/Bushian teaching to frighten the sheep into thinking that they are on the verge of anhilation.

A way to rouse emotional thought, over rational logical thought, to justify an overwhelming reaction to something near insignificant.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by pfflam
The conditions set by the Versailles Treaty casued WW2.

If we 'win' then . . . then . . . the battle will move elsewhere . . . with the continuation of an upsurge in terrorist actions . . .
. . . eventually, Muslims will get sick of the murder by these fanatic idiots and they will themselves put a stop to it.

If we 'lose' then they will have a larger base from which to set up shop . . . however, the Iraqis will want to set up a Government . ..and this will cause more terror . . . and eventually, the Muslims will get sick of the murdering bastards and put an end to it . .

only slightly do I imagine that there will actually be the rise of an Islamic State born out of the Fundamentalist's ideas . . . UNLESS we keep fuucking up on the scale that we are fucking up now!!!

Which, if Bush remains in office without being brought to trial for his crimes, will definitely happen. History doesn't totally support your thesis that the oppressed will on their own stand up to their oppressors.

To the contrary, when it gets to the point it is intolerable, it is very difficult to do just that without outside help.

I know that you think all of this is Bush's fault, since you say just that at EVERY opportunity. However, for a change, why not discuss the subject at hand? Let's get out of the cycle. Please.

Perhaps you are right about this current war leading to another. I can't say that I don't disagree with that being a possibility. Both WWi and WWII changed balances in power and brought about good results for much of Europe.

The thing that seems to stand out to me is that you and some here think that Democracy/Liberty/Freredom and governments based on those principles are on an equal standing with dictatorships and fascist regimes or even fundamentalist led regimes like afghanistan was. They are not. I don't know how you can sell that to your self, but I am sure you have your own reasons.

Democracy is and has been on the march. That is the fact that is causing the tension. I don't see it being stopped by anyone or any country. Right now at this point in time the US/UK is the defender/promoter of democracy. Fundamentalist muslims don't like the whole ideal, which renders them impotent, thus the current clash.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Both WWi and WWII changed balances in power and brought about good results for much of Europe.[/b]

And how much better off would we be had those wars not have happened?


The thing that seems to stand out to me is that you and some here think that Democracy/Liberty/Freredom and governments based on those principles are on an equal standing with dictatorships and fascist regimes or even fundamentalist led regimes like afghanistan was. They are not. I don't know how you can sell that to your self, but I am sure you have your own reasons.
Democracy/Liberty/freedom is going down the shitter, aparently because to defeat fundamentalist idealogy, we need to turn ourselves into fundamentalist idealogics.


Democracy is and has been on the march. That is the fact that is causing the tension. I don't see it being stopped by anyone or any country. Right now at this point in time the US/UK is the defender/promoter of democracy. Fundamentalist muslims don't like the whole ideal, which renders them impotent, thus the current clash.

It wouldn't take a smart terrorist to realise what was achieved with 1 small attack would be worth the effort and death of their own, and they seem only too happy to die.

One attack like this every few years, and you will be living in a fundamentalist, idealogical, faschist state within 30 years.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by MarcUK
calling it WW3, is just the latest Churchian/Bushian teaching to frighten the sheep into thinking that they are on the verge of anhilation.

A way to rouse emotional thought, over rational logical thought, to justify an overwhelming reaction to something near insignificant. The problem with your definition, is that this war is not only being fought on the battlefield, my friend.

You and I are battling it out right here, anyone in the world with a computer, TV or even a lowly radio knows about this war and has formed an opinion and perhaps alliances.

So in that way this a World War. As is pointed out in these very forums, judgments are made on a daily basis as to what is right and wrong, according to each individual. In the past, information flowed much more slowly and thus conclusions were less rapid fire.

Right now, there is so much information, true and not, that a pundit can pick a snapshot and extrapolate from there. Which explains why you and others here feel that Bush lied and not anyone else that said the very same things he did. I really want to discuss the current topic but it illustrates my point.

I think this is WWIII, in that the results are going to be global.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by MarcUK
And how much better off would we be had those wars not have happened?


Democracy/Liberty/freedom is going down the shitter, aparently because to defeat fundamentalist idealogy, we need to turn ourselves into fundamentalist idealogics.



It wouldn't take a smart terrorist to realise what was achieved with 1 small attack would be worth the effort and death of their own, and they seem only too happy to die.

One attack like this every few years, and you will be living in a fundamentalist, idealogical, faschist state within 30 years. Please tell me if I am wrong, but you seem to be OK with fundamentalist Islam taking it's crack at being a world power.

Your prediction seems to be based on valid concerns, but you seem to be going an extra unnecessary step.

Remember your first computer virus? Remember how you totally went overboard on your protection of your files?

9/11 was a severe attack. That and the fact that it is wartime will cause people like yourself to scream fascism. But self preservation takes over during war, and especially this new type of war.

I do see your concerns. But concerns shouldn't cause you to declare an enemy that is not only, NOT your enemy, but your only current hope against the REAL enemy,

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Please tell me if I am wrong, but you seem to be OK with fundamentalist Islam taking it's crack at being a world power.

yep, that would be easy to deduce, because I have said "Democracy/Liberty/freedom is going down the shitter, aparently because to defeat fundamentalist idealogy, we need to turn ourselves into fundamentalist idealogics.". Ok. I'll put it in black and white, so I don't get labelled a commie terrorist symphathiser.

"I hate fundamentalism. Period"


Your prediction seems to be based on valid concerns, but you seem to be going an extra unnecessary step. what unnecessary step?


Remember your first computer virus? Remember how you totally went overboard on your protection of your files?
Nah, never ever had one - but your analogy just explained perfectly that that the reaction is totally overboard and unnecessary, and a better approach would have been to think rationally and logically about the real risks and threats posed, and not rush in with emotional idealogical responses, weld my computer to the desk, request ID from my friends before they came through my door, bomb my ISP and anthrax letters to the sender


9/11 was a severe attack. That and the fact that it is wartime will cause people like yourself to scream fascism. But self preservation takes over during war, and especially this new type of war.

You begin to sound like a strawman evolutionist!. What happened to praying for God to deliver you from evil? What, you realise that it doesn't work? why is that? How exactly does killing justify killing? you cannot fight evil with evil, you cannot put out a fire with a flamethrower.

You might be suprised to learn that I don't despise Jesus, or the new Testament. There is a lesson to be learned there regardless that Jesus is the sun, see it doesn't matter that it never happened for real, it only matters that you understand the message. You will still be saved, and you won't have to wait till you die to find out you backed a lame horse.

At the moment, you are still taking eyes for eyes, so while you're running around desperately trying to please God, by unwittingly being everything you're not supposed to be, you are missing the last part of understanding the teachings of Jesus, and thus will always be fighing a war in your head.

Where did I get this enlightenment? Gnostic texts, astrotheology, the bible, and a Sufi Muslim. And when I finally overcome the need to spend hours arguing on the net with a bunch of idiotic strangers, you can be sure that I have been saved. Jesus was married too, her name was Sophia.


I do see your concerns. But concerns shouldn't cause you to declare an enemy that is not only, NOT your enemy, but your only current hope against the REAL enemy,

America isn't my enemy. There are many good americans, and many good things to come from america.

Stupidity, fundamentalism, idealogy based on faith, lies, corruption, greed IS my enemy.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by NaplesX
History doesn't totally support your thesis that the oppressed will on their own stand up to their oppressors.

To the contrary, when it gets to the point it is intolerable, it is very difficult to do just that without outside help.
Islamists truly want one thing: they want the people to rise up against the governments that they see as corrupt . . . when it is apparent that the 'people' hate the murderers more than any Government and it becomes apparent that the murderers are merely murderers . . then their pool of wannabes will dry up

that's what happened in Algeria, in a very short period of time . . . until the Islamists chose a distant and faceless enemy in order to inspire 'the People'
namely, the US


I know that you think all of this is Bush's fault, since you say just that at EVERY opportunity. However, for a change, why not discuss the subject at hand? Let's get out of the cycle. Please.

Perhaps you are right about this current war leading to another. I can't say that I don't disagree with that being a possibility. Both WWi and WWII changed balances in power and brought about good results for much of Europe. WW1 did nothing good!! Millions died in horrible mechanized mindless slaughter . . . and the only thing that came out of it was: a terrible situation which then led to WW2

WW2 did no good: if you take the notion that the Fascists taking power was in fact part of the war, and I do . . . it killed millions, allowed the Soviet Union to expand, . . . did I say killed millions!! and nearly destroyed an entire culture -European Jewery . .

The ONLY thing that is good that came out of WW2 is that we have become bigger Nihilists:

That is my opinion: humans can only be creative and free when they have beccome meaningless, without purpose except for those values that they can fashion out of the void . . . hand in hand with deep compassion, openness and love for others.



The thing that seems to stand out to me is that you and some here think that Democracy/Liberty/Freredom and governments based on those principles are on an equal standing with dictatorships and fascist regimes or even fundamentalist led regimes like afghanistan was. They are not. I don't know how you can sell that to your self, but I am sure you have your own reasons.

Democracy is and has been on the march. That is the fact that is causing the tension. I don't see it being stopped by anyone or any country. Right now at this point in time the US/UK is the defender/promoter of democracy. Fundamentalist muslims don't like the whole ideal, which renders them impotent, thus the current clash.
please read this closely:

You don't get it!!

They, and there really, truly is a 'They', are lying to you about 'the march of Freedom' . . . it is a Purpose, a grand Myth, given to the doltish masses by a cynical and manipulative group of politicians who are actually concerned with Power
. . . they DO actually want to maintain a semblance of democracy, but deep down they don't trust a Free populace: they are philosophically against the notions of a Liberal Democracy because they think that it will decay . . . they think that it is "Decadent"

and if that term doesn't ring bells for you, then I think you should review your history

They have lied numerous times on grand grand scales (they lied overtly about the scale and measure of the soviet threat, they lied about WMD, about links to terror networks, they lied about the nature of Al Queda, and still lie about it daily, they use FEAR and this Vision of Democracy as a unifying principle . . . something that they believe gives coherence to a society that would otherwise decay under nihilistic Liberal Democratic ideas.

They think that a society needs to believe in some Grand Myth . . . that a society needs such a Myth more than it needs Truth . . . it is bound together by such Myths . . . that, and Fear . . . which just happens to be a motivator: that helps make the Myth of goodness and Democracy that much more urgent feeling . . .

The point is, is that it is known among those who are writing the policies --and they are a handfull: Wollfowitz, Pearl, Cheney, Rumsfeld and other Straussian educated Neoconservatives-- that these Grand Visions are merely the pretense covering much more aggressive ideas . . . they are using the WOT as both a form of ideological consolidation of their power, but also, through the Fear and the Grand Vision, they are supposedly unifying a decadent culture . . . but unification under Myths that they do not themselves believe:

(for instance: religion, they clearly are not religious, there is no way that they are not going to nominate Orrin Hatch simply because some religious nut-cases want them to stick with their pretences and act according to their stated beliefs!)

Sure they think that its good for us dwarfish masses to believe in something, so they pretend to believe in it too . . . perhaps they will even create a global threat and response so that they know that we believe it (and voila: there you have it . . . in a few easy steps: . .. a grand tragedy, a vast tentacled network of evildoers who leave no traces, a reason to 'spread the Gospel of Democracy to the unLiberated oppressed . . . instant meaning and purpose -- perhaps we will survive Liberal Democracy after all)

This is what they believe: We masses need a purpose: an epic battle between good and evildoers . . .
So let's give it to them . . . otherwise Liberal Democracy has nothing to offer
--and while were at it . . . let's give that vision to the rest of the world too . . . and do so by establishing a bridghead in the ME

of course it too isn't that simplistic, after all I think that they also want pragmatic things like power of resources . . . but that is poohpoohed by everyone . . . its simply too obvious to take seriously . . .

anyway, another term that applied, in history, to an ideology that, in itself may not have believed in any real political positions and yet believed in binding society through Power and Myths of Grand visions

. . . another term for such and idea is 'Fascism': from the Latin Fascere, to fasten, to bind and unify . . .

Believe me, our country is being dragged around by the nose. by some rampantly visionary ideologues!!

and the damage that they have done will be very clear in hindsight . . .
hopefully it will not grow anymore, though . . .

[Immanuel Goldstein]

There is no similarity with the two world wars.

But if you really want to look for historical likenesses, it could be arranged.

Around two hundred years ago, several Western maritime powers, first of which Britain, were coming to the conclusion that piracy had to be eliminated. Mind you, those same powers often owed their beginnings in maritime prowess to piracy.
But in the early 1800s, Europe was still busy fighting the post-Revolutionary wars at the times cristallised around Emperor Napoleon (whose empire itself resorted at times to piracy since its navy could not match Britain's), but later the 1814 Vienna Congress stabilised continental affairs and set up much of what was to become the international order for exactly a hundred years: British hegemony supported by its maritime supremacy, with secondary powers able to bicker about but not to upset the global order (until the unified German empire ditched Bismarck and started building a big navy but that's another story).
So, after the Vienna Congress resources could be put to use for making the sea safe for commerce. Pirates were hunted down by all Western navies, as for countries offering safety or support to pirates, those could find themsleves at the receiving end of military operations (quite well known is the intervention by the then up and coming U.S. against the Barbary Coast and Tripolitania).
Another scourge of the time, the maritime slave trade, was similarily targeted.

These efforts were not burdened with ideology: all countries involved in hunting down pirate ships were quite busy themselves pillaging less technically advanced countries lacking proper defence abilities, all the while the same countries involved in cracking down on slave ships were either practicing slavery on parts of their territory or allowing subservient traditional societies to perpetuate slavery in their (growing) overseas dependencies.

Thus, there was a “war agaisnt piracy” and a “war against slave trade” and these were fought with military means, but the countries involved were not actually at war because of it, as they didn't need to re-route substantial resources from peace-time activities for these “wars” as was the case in Napoleon's time.

So comparison with the two global wars of the twentieth century are really out of place.

Terrorism shares many features with piracy, and the efforts against it seem to follow the same rationale as the of “the war against piracy”.

However, the main (and only) world power today, the U.S., has associated it “war against terorism” with the loose ends of one of its previous expeditions, the 1991 Gulf War, and seems to burden itself with ideological strings which might hinder its action.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by NaplesX
or... if we are, will failure in Iraq lead to a bigger bloodier battle elsewhere?

Senator Kennedy feels we should pull out as fast as possible http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050127/D87SHQI01.html this view is also held by many here, it would seem. Is there any wisdom in such a movement?

Following his advice, which has been consistent if nothing else, would spell sure failure for the US and any chances for democratic rule in Iraq. It would also spell sure victory for AQ.

And remember the four brits that were released? Well it appears that they were AQ trained and worse:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,12077023-23109,00.html

I can't find the story but there is a judge that dropped charges against terrorist recruiters, calling them "guerrillas".

I see a growing sympathy for the terrorist thugs that brought us Afghanistan and 9/11 and the current mayhem in Iraq. Now, I know that many here will say that US/UK tipped over the apple cart or stirred up the hornet's nest. Wether you believe this to be true or not, the apple cart or hornet's nest was there already. I personally think 9/11 was a bigger factor, but what do I know?

Terrorists/insurgents are threatening beheadings of the local populace if they exorcise their newly established rights. Can anyone here defend that kind of flagrant disregard for human rights?

This election IMO, in itself, has turned out to be a MAJOR battle in the WOT. Is anyone really hoping it is a failure, as it seems has been the case all along?

Just trying to envision the results of different actions.

Any thoughts?


Nappy it's because they remember little things like Vietnam ( which this much more closely resembles than a world war ). They were trying to change things there also. It was a total disaster. We lost many lives and many dollars. Also the blind respect for our government. So maybe ( given the circumstances ) something positive came out of it after all.;)

[SpcMs]

WWIII??? Puh-leez!

What we are seeing are some of the ripples of the cold war coming back to haunt us, combined with the internationalization of everything, including Muslim terrorism.
Take oil out of the equasion, and countries that don't move towards economic liberty, and, eventually, some kind of democracy, will become irrelevant quick enough.
If you look at it, it's laughable really. They got some box cutters on a plane, and some granades and mines from two countries that were bombed to pieces. Quite the threat...
The thing that brings us closest to WWIII here is the rationale of preemptive war based on shaky, faulty and faked evidence and religious ideology.
The limitation of personal freedoms and the use of scare tactics to remain in power by the leader of 'the most free nation on earth'.
The ridicule against the only political body that brings countries from around the world together.
The abolishment of international treaties the moment they bother.
The "with us or against us" spirit.
Promoting borderline-torture, or using terms like 'unlawfull fighter' to get a free pass on the most basic human rights.
It's how quickly the US forgot the lessons it learned from WWI&II and the Cold War that brings us closer to WWIII today. Not some frustrated poor muslims.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
There is no similarity with the two world wars.

But if you really want to look for historical likenesses, it could be arranged.

Around two hundred years ago, several Western maritime powers, first of which Britain, were coming to the conclusion that piracy had to be eliminated. Mind you, those same powers often owed their beginnings in maritime prowess to piracy.
But in the early 1800s, Europe was still busy fighting the post-Revolutionary wars at the times cristallised around Emperor Napoleon (whose empire itself resorted at times to piracy since its navy could not match Britain's), but later the 1814 Vienna Congress stabilised continental affairs and set up much of what was to become the international order for exactly a hundred years: British hegemony supported by its maritime supremacy, with secondary powers able to bicker about but not to upset the global order (until the unified German empire ditched Bismarck and started building a big navy but that's another story).
So, after the Vienna Congress resources could be put to use for making the sea safe for commerce. Pirates were hunted down by all Western navies, as for countries offering safety or support to pirates, those could find themsleves at the receiving end of military operations (quite well known is the intervention by the then up and coming U.S. against the Barbary Coast and Tripolitania).
Another scourge of the time, the maritime slave trade, was similarily targeted.

These efforts were not burdened with ideology: all countries involved in hunting down pirate ships were quite busy themselves pillaging less technically advanced countries lacking proper defence abilities, all the while the same countries involved in cracking down on slave ships were either practicing slavery on parts of their territory or allowing subservient traditional societies to perpetuate slavery in their (growing) overseas dependencies.

Thus, there was a “war agaisnt piracy” and a “war against slave trade” and these were fought with military means, but the countries involved were not actually at war because of it, as they didn't need to re-route substantial resources from peace-time activities for these “wars” as was the case in Napoleon's time.

So comparison with the two global wars of the twentieth century are really out of place.

Terrorism shares many features with piracy, and the efforts against it seem to follow the same rationale as the of “the war against piracy”.

However, the main (and only) world power today, the U.S., has associated it “war against terorism” with the loose ends of one of its previous expeditions, the 1991 Gulf War, and seems to burden itself with ideological strings which might hinder its action. Great post.

I really never made the connection, and you are absolutely right about the parallels. You are a healthy thinker.

But once again, the state of technology and access to information change the sell-ability of this war on terrorism. I am sure many innocents were killed and adversely effected by the war on pirates. But the pictures of their dead bodies and burnt babies were not put before the whole world to see the same night, with some pundit spinning the story to his ideological leanings.

When the Iraq war was announced, I said to myself "Great, someone is finally going to address the situation head on." I figured, much like like Afghanistan, Iraq would be another minor battle in the WOT.

But, it it not shaping up to be anything of the sort. We see terrorists streaming in from both Syria and Iran. AQ was in Iraq apparently before the war began. Fundamentalists seem to have made Iraq THE battle. As if Iraq will be a huge strategic loss. And if you look at the map you will see the importance. There will now be a wall of freedom-friendly nations Turkey-Iraq-Kuwait blocking Iran from Israel. This will slow thing down in those regards.

Which to me explains why Iran is pushing nuclear and it's missile development into overdrive. Anti-Semitism and outright hate drive the terrorist movement and effects the decision making of many a ME ruler.

[segovius]

Originally posted by NaplesX
We see terrorists streaming in from both Syria and Iran. AQ was in Iraq apparently before the war began.

I don't want to debate the veracity of these claims with you - it's been done to death and imo you are a hopeless cause.

I'd just like to ask what constitutes 'seeing' as you mention above.

Have you literally seen footage of this ? Or have you read or heard it somewhere ? If the latter please post reference.

I am researching the trail of this stuff to the 'end user'.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Great post.

I really never made the connection, and you are absolutely right about the parallels. You are a healthy thinker.

But once again, the state of technology and access to information change the sell-ability of this war on terrorism. I am sure many innocents were killed and adversely effected by the war on pirates. But the pictures of their dead bodies and burnt babies were not put before the whole world to see the same night, with some pundit spinning the story to his ideological leanings.

When the Iraq war was announced, I said to myself "Great, someone is finally going to address the situation head on." I figured, much like like Afghanistan, Iraq would be another minor battle in the WOT.

But, it it not shaping up to be anything of the sort. We see terrorists streaming in from both Syria and Iran. AQ was in Iraq apparently before the war began. Fundamentalists seem to have made Iraq THE battle. As if Iraq will be a huge strategic loss. And if you look at the map you will see the importance. There will now be a wall of freedom-friendly nations Turkey-Iraq-Kuwait blocking Iran from Israel. This will slow thing down in those regards.

Which to me explains why Iran is pushing nuclear and it's missile development into overdrive. Anti-Semitism and outright hate drive the terrorist movement and effects the decision making of many a ME ruler. You're amazing . . . you have all these thoughtful posts and then you return as if nothing was said by anyone and post this swill?!?!!

[Stoo]

Remember your first computer virus? Remember how you totally went overboard on your protection of your files?

I merely had a wry chuckle at it being on Mac User's "Greatest Cover CD ever" (7.5.5 + OpenDoc).

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Remember your first computer virus? Remember how you totally went overboard on your protection of your files?
No.

[Aries 1B]

Originally posted by NaplesX
The problem with your definition, is that this war is not only being fought on the battlefield, my friend.

You and I are battling it out right here, anyone in the world with a computer, TV or even a lowly radio knows about this war and has formed an opinion and perhaps alliances.

So in that way this a World War. As is pointed out in these very forums, judgments are made on a daily basis as to what is right and wrong, according to each individual. In the past, information flowed much more slowly and thus conclusions were less rapid fire.

Right now, there is so much information, true and not, that a pundit can pick a snapshot and extrapolate from there. Which explains why you and others here feel that Bush lied and not anyone else that said the very same things he did. I really want to discuss the current topic but it illustrates my point.

I think this is WWIII, in that the results are going to be global.


Just to nit-pick: Isn't the world-wide Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States of America considered World War Three (which, happily, didn't go nuclear)? I thought that the current conflict was World War Four.

...counting in base ten, of course.

Aries 1B

[kneelbeforezod]

Originally posted by NaplesX
And remember the four brits that were released? Well it appears that they were AQ trained and worse:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,1011...3-23109,00.html
Dude, if you locked me up and subjected me to stress and duress interrogation for three years I'd confess to having had a teaparty with Stalin, Hitler and Tomas de Torquemada. There is no other evidence to support that these guys were AQ. Look at how they were detained in the first place. Not in fighting, not by US or Brit troops. They were handed over to by local militia and paramilitary police in exchange for bounties.

But beyond that, what will happen if terrorists win?...how about if the US/UK wins?The only real and final way to win in a fight against terrorists (or insurgents, rebels or freedom fighters) is to kill them all and their families too. Kill most of them and spare the families and the kids will be strapping on the dynamite five years later. The only realistic option is stalemate; fight until everyone is sick of the killing and negotiate some kind of peace. I suppose we could leave them alone, but that might be considered letting them win.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Aries 1B
Just to nit-pick: Isn't the world-wide Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States of America considered World War Three (which, happily, didn't go nuclear)? I thought that the current conflict was World War Four.

...counting in base ten, of course.

Aries 1B

Yes. That's the way I understand it, too. The current conflict essentially redefines warfare.

[burningwheel]

WW2 lead to terrorism :???: how's that?

[Sceptic]

Originally posted by burningwheel
WW2 lead to terrorism :???: how's that?

Well I guess you could argue it lead to the creation of Israel, which continues to piss off most muslims. And WW ll lead to the cold war, which lead to the US helping Osama Bin Laden and friends in Afghanastan. These two things pretty much lead us to the situation we have now.

Oh yeah. And the American president feels it is his mission to bring liberty to the world. How about starting with the principles of freedom in your own country first president? (patriot act anyone?)

[e1618978]

And WW ll lead to the cold war[/B]

You are saying that without WW II, the US and Stalin would have
been best friends?

The cold war would have happened even if WW II did not.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by e1618978
You are saying that without WW II, the US and Stalin would have
been best friends?

The cold war would have happened even if WW II did not. The Soviet Union would have had to use agression without the justification of the war in order to grab as much land as they had . . . . Eastern Europe, remember Eastern Europe . . it was Communist for years: their expansionism would have had a very different color . . . and they probably would have collapse much quicker due to internal pressures,lack of a handy-dandy external threat, and Stalin's rampant extreme inward-tuned paranoia.

[Immanuel Goldstein]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Great post.
Thank you.

I really never made the connection, and you are absolutely right about the parallels. You are a healthy thinker.
Thank you again.

But once again, the state of technology and access to information change the sell-ability of this war on terrorism. I am sure many innocents were killed and adversely effected by the war on pirates. But the pictures of their dead bodies and burnt babies were not put before the whole world to see the same night, with some pundit spinning the story to his ideological leanings.
You are right about the different states of technology. But in many ways, the general public of the early 1800s lived a more violent life than in today's developed countries, and even without abundant information it was probably assumed that the “war on piracy” a bloody job but one which had to be done, as the prevailing attitude at the time was far more tolerant and even supportive of violence.
Since those days, the default attitude has mostly changed, from one mechanically supporting any war for king, god, country, corps, and clan, to one automatically discounting any use of force except if one has to face a formidably powerful and ruthless adversary who must be given the opportunity to shoot first lest one be suspected of aggressivness.

When the Iraq war was announced, I said to myself "Great, someone is finally going to address the situation head on." I figured, much like like Afghanistan, Iraq would be another minor battle in the WOT.
During the nineteen-nineties the U.S. found it tolerable to have Iraq weakened but still under Saddam Hussain's rule (it was Mr. Bush the father's decision which neither Mr. Clinton nor anyone in his administration would have dared to question), it seems that post September 11th 2001 the U.S. decided that was no longer tolerable; the battle in Iraq seems more a corollary to the “war on terrorism” than an integral part of it; not that I'm complaining mind you, I thought 1991 was a good opportunity to get rid of the Saddam thug, too bad it wasn't done then and there, and better late than never.

But, it it not shaping up to be anything of the sort. We see terrorists streaming in from both Syria and Iran. AQ was in Iraq apparently before the war began. Fundamentalists seem to have made Iraq THE battle. As if Iraq will be a huge strategic loss. And if you look at the map you will see the importance. There will now be a wall of freedom-friendly nations Turkey-Iraq-Kuwait blocking Iran from Israel. This will slow thing down in those regards.
There are several assumptions here, some more likely than others.
It is probable that Syria and Iran have facilitated passage for destabilising elements to Iraq (both regimes have trouble keeping their own stability lately so it is expedient for them as well).
As for Al-Qaeda having been active in Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion, I doubt it. Most of the country was under Saddam Hussain's control and he had zero tolerance for armed groups not of his own apparatus, and as for the north where the Kurds are in control, they'd have slaughtered the AQs before the latter had dismounted their 4WD Toyotas.

Which to me explains why Iran is pushing nuclear and it's missile development into overdrive.
Iran has been working toward achieving nuclear weapon capability for years (confirming once again the uselessness of non-proliferation treaties and the sort), ever since Khomeini's death as the old rabid preacher was fiercely opposed to the Bomb.
Iran's nuclear weapons programme was probably accelerated by Pakistan's achievements in that department, the two neighbouring Islamic republics not being on the friendliest of terms.
Some in Tehran may fear to be next on the “White House's shit-list” (a fear which has also been loudly expressed by some participants in these boards), which may have contributed to Iran's pushing for nucelar weapons although the latter suggestion is purely speculation from my part.

Anti-Semitism and outright hate drive the terrorist movement and effects the decision making of many a ME ruler.
Since said regimes and organisations are rather unenlightened it's to be expected.
The regimes in questions are only preoccupied with their own preservation, it is the prime motive in their decision making.
Terrorist organisations seek to give a great show. As you may have noticed, the more spectacular terror attacks were against symbols. Destroying the enemy's banner and staff (or whatever is perceived by the terrorists as such) is even more important in these cases than killing as many enemies as possible* so to show the enemy's weakness and the strength of the “righterous ones” and their cause.
Which seems to indicate how the terrorists think and where one of their main weakness might lie: in their own cherished symbols.

*Of course killing as many enemies as possible is important too, which is why unarmed “enemies” in non-combat situations are preferred as they are less likely to fight back

[Placebo]

Oh please, let this not turn into a nuclear war. Oh please let that not happen. Oh please. :\