Terror and its impact on society.
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 26

Thread: Terror and its impact on society.

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    4,424

    Terror and its impact on society.

    This is something I wrote for the Newsletter... I'm putting it up here to give you a chance to reply to it (yes, it's open for discuccion...).

    The New World-Order.
    Terror and its impact on society.


    The three terror-waves of our times.

    Terror-waves are not new. Everytime when our society evolves fast and becomes complex, and civil groups have the feeling they are being marginalized, a terror-wave comes up. We had one at the end of the 19th century when anarchists terrorized Europe (the cause: the industrialization), we had one in the 1930's when extreme-right terrorized the world, and now we have Al-Qaeda.

    Just like the anarchists in the 19th century, Al-Qaeda won't stop untill the cause goes away. They will continue to attack the symbols of the arrogance of power. And those symbols happen to be American.

    Al-Qaeda after Sept. 11.

    It's been relatively quiet for about a year after September 11, 2001. That year is what Al-Qaeda needed to integrate in local terrorist groups. There's no coherence between their actions anymore. The fact that the recent attacks (attacks in Tunesia and Pakistan, attacks on American soldiers in Kuwait, attack on the French-Belgian oil tanker 'De Limburg') fall together gives the impression that they are being centrally organized. That's not the case though. The recent uprise has everything to do with the local situation in Kuwait and Bali. Those attacks didn't require techonological means. They didn't require planning. Al-Qaeda is not able anymore to do something like the WTC-attack.
    That doesn't mean Al-Qaeda ain't dangerous anymore. The recent terrorism is harder to fight than the one from before Sept. 11, just because of the fact that it isn't centralized anymore.

    Terror and Islam.

    It is tempting to blame the Islam for what's been happening. It also is wrong.
    The recent anti-terrorism campaign are pretty effective. More effective than the ones in the past. It's easy - and dangerous! - to think that we're on the eve of WW III. Panick is a bad advisor: if you panick, you'll start looking for an enemy, and you'll use violence on that enemy.
    That's what's happening now, and that's only going to make things worse. Thinking about nothing but military counter-measures will make things worse, because it gives the impression that an arrogant Western 'union' thinks about nothing but their own safety, and doesn't care about the rest of the world. It is dangerous to not think about the real cause of the terrorism. It is dangerous to blame Islam, because Islam has nothing to do with the real cause.
    Bin Laden though does everything to make us believe it IS related to Islam. Bin Laden's ambitions are the ones of every messiah: he wants to become the khalif of the Muslim-world. That's why he tries to involve Islam. That's not as dumb as it sounds: every religion once started as a sect that got lucky. Bin Laden uses the humiliation of the Middle-East, with the Palestinian cause as his best weapon. That explains why he's so popular in the Muslim-community... to them, Bin Laden is a modern Robin Hood.

    Comparison with the 'older' terror-waves.

    The terror-wave of the 1900's is the only terror-wave that was reacted upon correctly. Don't be mistaken: that terror-wave was a lot worse than what's happening now: presidents were murdered, government-buildings were bombed,... The reaction? The bourgeois-state was reformed in a state where workers got a chance, thereby taking away the source of the anarchism.

    The 1930's terror-wave (fascism) was reacted upon wrong, and finally led to WW II.

    The conclusion is simple: do we really want WW III? Do we really want a replay of what happened in the 1930's? We're going in that direction...

    The current situation is perfectly comparable with the one at the end of the 1900's: a globalizing world, an industrial revolution, a rift between the rich and the poor. That rift is only growing, and our nonchalance towards that rift is frigtening.
    We should have learned a lesson from that first terror-wave. But no, Mr. Bush doesn't like to learn.

    The US.

    American neo-conservatives see the recent terror-waves as a gift. A gift that will finally allow them to establish the foreign policy they've been wanting to establish since the 90's.
    They see America as the only light in this dark world. They are convinced that America should use its military supremacy to offer the world stability.
    They use 11/9 as an alibi to vote new laws. New laws that are nothing less than freedom-threatening.
    The neo-conservatives don't care about the terrorism: Clinton made a plan to capture Bin Laden from Tadzjikistan. The neo-conservatives made sure that plan didn't work out. Bin Laden fitted perfectly in their plans. And so does Saddam.
    The - unavoidable - upcoming war in Iraq will be a test. A test to prove that the States have entered a new era.

    The real problem?

    Nuclear weapons are NOT the problem: Iraq needs at least two more years to manufacture a nuclear weapon IF they can get their hands on enriched uranium (they never succeeded to get that stuff in the past).
    CIA-officials have confirmed last week that it is highly unlikely that Saddam will ever use nuclear weapons. Using them would be suicide, and he knows that. The only case where he will use mass-destruction weapons is when he feels trapped. And that's just what might happen.

    The States keep pushing on the fact that it is all about nukes. A leaked Pentagon-document showed a couple of weeks ago that the States themselves are willing to use nuclear weapons THEMSELVES against China, Syria, Russia, Iran, Iraq and North-Korea.
    If it really was about nuclear weapons, the States should go after North-Korea. That country DOES have nuclear weapons.

    It's all about nukes? Yeah right...

    Europe.

    Where does this all leave Europe? Europe is the only power able to stand up against America, IF the Europeans unite. And that's not happening right now: Spain (with Aznar), Italy (Berlusconi), The Netherlands (Balkenende) are on America's side. Is it really a coincidence that those countries are right-wing?
    Still, Europe is the only alternative for the new American world order.
    Newsweek made a prediction a while ago: within ten years, America will lose its world-power to Europe, possibly with Blair as its leader.
    That's not as crazy as it sounds: the States are not as powerfull anymore as they used to be after WW II: Europe is more important when it comes to the world-economy than the States. It's unimaginable that the greatest economical world-power (Europe, that is) plays the second fiddle when it comes to politics. The only conditions for that Newsweek-prediction are ambition (a united, ambitious Europe), and a continuing American recession.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    4,424

    Terror and its impact on society.

    This is something I wrote for the Newsletter... I'm putting it up here to give you a chance to reply to it (yes, it's open for discuccion...).

    The New World-Order.
    Terror and its impact on society.


    The three terror-waves of our times.

    Terror-waves are not new. Everytime when our society evolves fast and becomes complex, and civil groups have the feeling they are being marginalized, a terror-wave comes up. We had one at the end of the 19th century when anarchists terrorized Europe (the cause: the industrialization), we had one in the 1930's when extreme-right terrorized the world, and now we have Al-Qaeda.

    Just like the anarchists in the 19th century, Al-Qaeda won't stop untill the cause goes away. They will continue to attack the symbols of the arrogance of power. And those symbols happen to be American.

    Al-Qaeda after Sept. 11.

    It's been relatively quiet for about a year after September 11, 2001. That year is what Al-Qaeda needed to integrate in local terrorist groups. There's no coherence between their actions anymore. The fact that the recent attacks (attacks in Tunesia and Pakistan, attacks on American soldiers in Kuwait, attack on the French-Belgian oil tanker 'De Limburg') fall together gives the impression that they are being centrally organized. That's not the case though. The recent uprise has everything to do with the local situation in Kuwait and Bali. Those attacks didn't require techonological means. They didn't require planning. Al-Qaeda is not able anymore to do something like the WTC-attack.
    That doesn't mean Al-Qaeda ain't dangerous anymore. The recent terrorism is harder to fight than the one from before Sept. 11, just because of the fact that it isn't centralized anymore.

    Terror and Islam.

    It is tempting to blame the Islam for what's been happening. It also is wrong.
    The recent anti-terrorism campaign are pretty effective. More effective than the ones in the past. It's easy - and dangerous! - to think that we're on the eve of WW III. Panick is a bad advisor: if you panick, you'll start looking for an enemy, and you'll use violence on that enemy.
    That's what's happening now, and that's only going to make things worse. Thinking about nothing but military counter-measures will make things worse, because it gives the impression that an arrogant Western 'union' thinks about nothing but their own safety, and doesn't care about the rest of the world. It is dangerous to not think about the real cause of the terrorism. It is dangerous to blame Islam, because Islam has nothing to do with the real cause.
    Bin Laden though does everything to make us believe it IS related to Islam. Bin Laden's ambitions are the ones of every messiah: he wants to become the khalif of the Muslim-world. That's why he tries to involve Islam. That's not as dumb as it sounds: every religion once started as a sect that got lucky. Bin Laden uses the humiliation of the Middle-East, with the Palestinian cause as his best weapon. That explains why he's so popular in the Muslim-community... to them, Bin Laden is a modern Robin Hood.

    Comparison with the 'older' terror-waves.

    The terror-wave of the 1900's is the only terror-wave that was reacted upon correctly. Don't be mistaken: that terror-wave was a lot worse than what's happening now: presidents were murdered, government-buildings were bombed,... The reaction? The bourgeois-state was reformed in a state where workers got a chance, thereby taking away the source of the anarchism.

    The 1930's terror-wave (fascism) was reacted upon wrong, and finally led to WW II.

    The conclusion is simple: do we really want WW III? Do we really want a replay of what happened in the 1930's? We're going in that direction...

    The current situation is perfectly comparable with the one at the end of the 1900's: a globalizing world, an industrial revolution, a rift between the rich and the poor. That rift is only growing, and our nonchalance towards that rift is frigtening.
    We should have learned a lesson from that first terror-wave. But no, Mr. Bush doesn't like to learn.

    The US.

    American neo-conservatives see the recent terror-waves as a gift. A gift that will finally allow them to establish the foreign policy they've been wanting to establish since the 90's.
    They see America as the only light in this dark world. They are convinced that America should use its military supremacy to offer the world stability.
    They use 11/9 as an alibi to vote new laws. New laws that are nothing less than freedom-threatening.
    The neo-conservatives don't care about the terrorism: Clinton made a plan to capture Bin Laden from Tadzjikistan. The neo-conservatives made sure that plan didn't work out. Bin Laden fitted perfectly in their plans. And so does Saddam.
    The - unavoidable - upcoming war in Iraq will be a test. A test to prove that the States have entered a new era.

    The real problem?

    Nuclear weapons are NOT the problem: Iraq needs at least two more years to manufacture a nuclear weapon IF they can get their hands on enriched uranium (they never succeeded to get that stuff in the past).
    CIA-officials have confirmed last week that it is highly unlikely that Saddam will ever use nuclear weapons. Using them would be suicide, and he knows that. The only case where he will use mass-destruction weapons is when he feels trapped. And that's just what might happen.

    The States keep pushing on the fact that it is all about nukes. A leaked Pentagon-document showed a couple of weeks ago that the States themselves are willing to use nuclear weapons THEMSELVES against China, Syria, Russia, Iran, Iraq and North-Korea.
    If it really was about nuclear weapons, the States should go after North-Korea. That country DOES have nuclear weapons.

    It's all about nukes? Yeah right...

    Europe.

    Where does this all leave Europe? Europe is the only power able to stand up against America, IF the Europeans unite. And that's not happening right now: Spain (with Aznar), Italy (Berlusconi), The Netherlands (Balkenende) are on America's side. Is it really a coincidence that those countries are right-wing?
    Still, Europe is the only alternative for the new American world order.
    Newsweek made a prediction a while ago: within ten years, America will lose its world-power to Europe, possibly with Blair as its leader.
    That's not as crazy as it sounds: the States are not as powerfull anymore as they used to be after WW II: Europe is more important when it comes to the world-economy than the States. It's unimaginable that the greatest economical world-power (Europe, that is) plays the second fiddle when it comes to politics. The only conditions for that Newsweek-prediction are ambition (a united, ambitious Europe), and a continuing American recession.

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    27
    Great article Neg, there are just a few things I would like to point out.

    You have taken the current terrorist attacks and compared them to the fascism of the 1930s, asking whether we are on the brink of World War III. But, I don't think that our current situation can be compared to the Nazi regime before and during WWII. Germany, at that time, was controlled by the Nazis who decided to attempt world conquest through military force and terror. Osama Bin Laden is not the ruler of Afghanistan (or any other country) as Hitler was of Germany. Saddam Hussein is the dictator of Iraq, but, due to the past US actions in Iraq, that country does not possess the factories and resources to built an army like that of Hitler. So, I don't think that we are actually on the brink of WWIII in the classical sense, where every country takes a side, they start invading neighboring countries, and the fight it out on battlefields using the traditional weapons of war. The war we are facing is different than any war that we, as a world, have ever seen before.

    It is true that conservatives in the US government have used terrorism to push their own political agendas, and I think that is deplorable, but that doesn't mean that there was a vast conspiracy of conservatives to let Bin Laden live so that he could attack the US, as you seem to suggest in your article. George W. Bush is pushing for a war in Iraq, and that is a completely political motive for him. With support for his "war on terror" waning, he needs a new enemy so that he can keep his approval rating up; that enemy is Iraq. It is my belief that Iraq does not posses any nuclear weapons, though they probably hope they did, because it would give them a bargaining chip to use against US invasion. That invasion seems to be getting more and more inevitable as time goes on. It seems almost a forgone conclusion that the United States will invade Iraq; the only question that seems to remain up in the air is what other countries are going to do in response to US actions.

    I do not think that Europe will suddenly decide to rise up and oppose the United States. England and the US have had a tradition of backing each other for decades, even through controversial wars, such as Britain in the Falkland Islands, or US in Iraq Version 1.0. I don't think Britain will suddenly decide to back out on their tradition of mutual support with the United States, and, being one of the driving forces in Europe, I think Britainís decision will be one of the deciding factors for the rest of the continent.

    Are we hading into a conflict with an invisible enemy called "terror," yes I think we are. The US will probably be its stubborn self and do what it wants regardless of European pressure, because that's what the US has always done. The war that will happen is going to be different than any other, because I don't think it is a war that can ever be won. As long as there exists a country or a person who has power, and there are other people who don't have power or money, those people will try to do whatever they have to do to opposed the source of their oppression - the powerful nation. With limited resources, their only means of resistance and attack will be through guerrilla warfare and terrorist attacks.

    The war that has begun is a war that will have no ending...there is no point at which terrorism will be completely eradicated. Hopefully someone in power realizes this before the entire world is entered into an endless conflict with a phantom enemy.
    My $0.02

  4. #4
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    27
    Great article Neg, there are just a few things I would like to point out.

    You have taken the current terrorist attacks and compared them to the fascism of the 1930s, asking whether we are on the brink of World War III. But, I don't think that our current situation can be compared to the Nazi regime before and during WWII. Germany, at that time, was controlled by the Nazis who decided to attempt world conquest through military force and terror. Osama Bin Laden is not the ruler of Afghanistan (or any other country) as Hitler was of Germany. Saddam Hussein is the dictator of Iraq, but, due to the past US actions in Iraq, that country does not possess the factories and resources to built an army like that of Hitler. So, I don't think that we are actually on the brink of WWIII in the classical sense, where every country takes a side, they start invading neighboring countries, and the fight it out on battlefields using the traditional weapons of war. The war we are facing is different than any war that we, as a world, have ever seen before.

    It is true that conservatives in the US government have used terrorism to push their own political agendas, and I think that is deplorable, but that doesn't mean that there was a vast conspiracy of conservatives to let Bin Laden live so that he could attack the US, as you seem to suggest in your article. George W. Bush is pushing for a war in Iraq, and that is a completely political motive for him. With support for his "war on terror" waning, he needs a new enemy so that he can keep his approval rating up; that enemy is Iraq. It is my belief that Iraq does not posses any nuclear weapons, though they probably hope they did, because it would give them a bargaining chip to use against US invasion. That invasion seems to be getting more and more inevitable as time goes on. It seems almost a forgone conclusion that the United States will invade Iraq; the only question that seems to remain up in the air is what other countries are going to do in response to US actions.

    I do not think that Europe will suddenly decide to rise up and oppose the United States. England and the US have had a tradition of backing each other for decades, even through controversial wars, such as Britain in the Falkland Islands, or US in Iraq Version 1.0. I don't think Britain will suddenly decide to back out on their tradition of mutual support with the United States, and, being one of the driving forces in Europe, I think Britainís decision will be one of the deciding factors for the rest of the continent.

    Are we hading into a conflict with an invisible enemy called "terror," yes I think we are. The US will probably be its stubborn self and do what it wants regardless of European pressure, because that's what the US has always done. The war that will happen is going to be different than any other, because I don't think it is a war that can ever be won. As long as there exists a country or a person who has power, and there are other people who don't have power or money, those people will try to do whatever they have to do to opposed the source of their oppression - the powerful nation. With limited resources, their only means of resistance and attack will be through guerrilla warfare and terrorist attacks.

    The war that has begun is a war that will have no ending...there is no point at which terrorism will be completely eradicated. Hopefully someone in power realizes this before the entire world is entered into an endless conflict with a phantom enemy.
    My $0.02

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    41
    It would be nice if we had a way to write editorials about the articles published in the newsletter, but since not, well, let's post away.

    Negative, I know that you are able to distinguish between personal and intellectual argument here, and you do mention some good points, but with all due respect, you've been listening to Ministry way to much =)

    I have lived years of my life in different countries and witnessed how this anti-America thing works. In its basic form, it's very similar to the mentality of young males that terrorist groups love to recruit. All you really have to do is go to an university and start asking what they think about us and you'll be horrified,which is humorous ... considering that our type of government originated from europe.
    It seems to me that it just became too easy to blame it on America and I dont see anybody else doing much about anything besides critique. It's very hypocrit of people to criticize our efforts to create a global anti-terrorist policy, then go out in large groups in their own city, breaking every store and fighting with cops until the break of dawn because of a soccer game. Any european knows what i'm talking about and that's just another type of terrorism.

    Now Saddam Hussein, maybe i shouldn't even bother talking about this, because it's clear and it has been argued enough. If you look a little closer, had the UN done what it's suppost to do in the past, we would not have reached this point.


    Terrorrism is not just Al Qaeda. Just like its root is not so much based on political/religious beliefs, but manipulative skills for the interest of a few in power. It's easy to take advantage of people when they have a need to belong to a cause, an eye for an eye emotional development stage of adolescence in which the individual feels anger. Now I know that i am getting into a whole terrorist psychoanalysis here, but you cannot judge a group if you ignore the individuals. The 'head' of these organizations, they are the biggest brain washers you can think of and it becomes so easy to give these kids something to hate and eventually, to die for.


    I think that what i'm trying to say here is that yes, our government is messed up in many things, but please show me which government isn't? You basically say that for terrorists to dissapear, we...the americans, gotta blow ourselves up. Anyone who studied history knows that an empire can only last for a certain period of time. But the spirit of this nation stands for beliefs that will never dissapear among humans. As far as the arrogance goes, Machiavelli wasn't so wrong after all.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    41
    It would be nice if we had a way to write editorials about the articles published in the newsletter, but since not, well, let's post away.

    Negative, I know that you are able to distinguish between personal and intellectual argument here, and you do mention some good points, but with all due respect, you've been listening to Ministry way to much =)

    I have lived years of my life in different countries and witnessed how this anti-America thing works. In its basic form, it's very similar to the mentality of young males that terrorist groups love to recruit. All you really have to do is go to an university and start asking what they think about us and you'll be horrified,which is humorous ... considering that our type of government originated from europe.
    It seems to me that it just became too easy to blame it on America and I dont see anybody else doing much about anything besides critique. It's very hypocrit of people to criticize our efforts to create a global anti-terrorist policy, then go out in large groups in their own city, breaking every store and fighting with cops until the break of dawn because of a soccer game. Any european knows what i'm talking about and that's just another type of terrorism.

    Now Saddam Hussein, maybe i shouldn't even bother talking about this, because it's clear and it has been argued enough. If you look a little closer, had the UN done what it's suppost to do in the past, we would not have reached this point.


    Terrorrism is not just Al Qaeda. Just like its root is not so much based on political/religious beliefs, but manipulative skills for the interest of a few in power. It's easy to take advantage of people when they have a need to belong to a cause, an eye for an eye emotional development stage of adolescence in which the individual feels anger. Now I know that i am getting into a whole terrorist psychoanalysis here, but you cannot judge a group if you ignore the individuals. The 'head' of these organizations, they are the biggest brain washers you can think of and it becomes so easy to give these kids something to hate and eventually, to die for.


    I think that what i'm trying to say here is that yes, our government is messed up in many things, but please show me which government isn't? You basically say that for terrorists to dissapear, we...the americans, gotta blow ourselves up. Anyone who studied history knows that an empire can only last for a certain period of time. But the spirit of this nation stands for beliefs that will never dissapear among humans. As far as the arrogance goes, Machiavelli wasn't so wrong after all.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,193
    Hi Negative.

    Your article has some points I would like to take up.

    in reference to Clinton having a plan to grab Bin Laden, it has already been shown that the Sudanese gov't had him in house arrest and offered him to the Clinton administration, which refused his capture. Sorry about the supposed secret right wing not being in office then.

    With regard to the multi-faceted rant on Europe being the only "power" able (please) and willing (like Euro unity is any better than Arab unity) I remind you that Our beloved European powers are the very ones which gave the world the gift of the previous world wars. It is the weakness and inability of the Euro powers to stand up to threats that keep putting America, despite its predisposition to interfere, in the position of rescueing Europe, often from its own problems.

    Let me ask a simple question- Are you not being a tad Euro centric by suggesting Europe should be leading and not America? What if neither side should be the foremost power? What am I saying? How does this point of view make the Asians and Africans feel? Marginalized? Please reconsider, siince, perhaps both America and Europe need an attitude adjustment.
    Trappedagainbyperfectlogic.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    4,424
    in reference to Clinton having a plan to grab Bin Laden, it has already been shown that the Sudanese gov't had him in house arrest and offered him to the Clinton administration, which refused his capture. Sorry about the supposed secret right wing not being in office then.
    Point taken. Clinton is just as bad as Bush then.

    With regard to the multi-faceted rant on Europe being the only "power" able (please) and willing (like Euro unity is any better than Arab unity) I remind you that Our beloved European powers are the very ones which gave the world the gift of the previous world wars. It is the weakness and inability of the Euro powers to stand up to threats that keep putting America, despite its predisposition to interfere, in the position of rescueing Europe, often from its own problems.
    Able: yes; willing: never said anything about that. If you'd read my post, you'd know that. And besides, I didn't say they're able to, Newsweek did.
    My point, as said in my original post:
    Able:
    Europe is the only power able to stand up against America
    The simple FACT that Europe is more important than the US when it comes to world-economy says enough, no? If you want facts, I'd be more than happy to mail you some reports.

    Willing:
    IF the Europeans unite.
    IF, as in a condition... I even added that that is NOT happening right now.

    And YES, you're right about America having rescued Europe in the past - That arguement is so true, but keep pushing me and I'll start making the Indians/Americans (no offence)-comparison (although you don't seem to have the first clue about what Europe is about now - Germany is an ALLY right now, remember? The last WW was some 60 years ago)...

    Let me ask a simple question- Are you not being a tad Euro centric by suggesting Europe should be leading and not America? What if neither side should be the foremost power? What am I saying? How does this point of view make the Asians and Africans feel? Marginalized? Please reconsider, siince, perhaps both America and Europe need an attitude adjustment.
    I never said Europe should be leading. Too bad for the Asians and Africans, but if you'd have taken the effort to consult some figures, you'd know that the only 'power' to be able to take over America's power is Europe. Don't call me racist or whatever for that, blame the figures.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    1,130
    Personally I do not see any difference between Europe leading or the U.S. leading. It should be a democratic decision. Shortly after WWII, we all signed the NATO treaty which declares that
    An attack on one is an attack on us all.
    Unfortunately, this treaty was signed during a time when wars were still fought on battlefields against a named enemy. Terrorism as we know it today did not exist then. I do not think that the U.S. found many allies who were willing to support them militarily in thier war to end it, despite thier contractual oblications to do so. But to my knowledge, they have never refused an ally in need since the end of WWII. Had they not made such a public spectacle of destruction about it, it would have left the rest of the world with the opinion that they do not back up thier threats with force, and invited more to follow. While most of my country was and still is against going to war over it, I would interpret that treaty to mean that a theat to America is a threat to us all. We signed that treaty, and if we should expect American support in the future, we must be willing to provide the same in return now. It should not matter whose flag your armed forces fly. We are allies, and as allies, we should show the rest of the world a united front when it comes to power, be that power either militaristic or economic.

    As far as nukes are concerned, I don't think it's Hussein getting his hands on one that we need to worry about. He is smart enough not to use it. His country would be laid to waste without the slightest inkling of mercy within mere hours. It's the thought of him getting one and losing it to terrorists that scares me. They would be willing to use it. His is not the most honest government in the world, and nukes could conceivably be sold on a black market there. We now know how vulnerable the world is to terrorism. Simply because the United States is usually the intended target of said terrorism is not reason enough to ignore it.

    How about a new alliance which would include the whole of the United Nations?
    Government is like fire - a handy servant, but a dangerous master - George Washington
    Government is not reason, it is not eloquence - it is force. - George Washington.

    Join the UnError community!

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,193
    I did read your whole post actually, and as usual, it was well written. I did not fully agree.
    I will make this point to which, as you refer to consultation with facts and figures, it might influence your stand a little. Europe is getting older and not having nearly as many children as the US is. Reuters and the Economist have both covered this salient point recently to the effect that in twenty years the US will have a larger population, and younger, than Europe's.
    As to which side is more important, economically, I have not argued that issue ( remember - you invited us to discourse with your article) yet I DO agree Europe has my vote at present for the most economically robust. I do indeed, know my worldwide economic statistics. My main thrust was that at present, the European house is not able to challenge the US. I did not make this a right or wrong issue and am not interested in "proving" anything. Chill.
    Trappedagainbyperfectlogic.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •