'Warmongers' have a point: It's a war

Politics International Politics
1

I wonder, in the dusty back of my head, if people are finally getting the picture:

[quote]
June 11, 2006

BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

Here are four news stories from the last week:

Baghdad: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi found himself on the receiving end of 500 pounds of U.S. ordnance.

London: Scotland Yard arrested a cell of East End Muslims allegedly plotting a sarin attack in Britain.

Toronto: The Mounties busted a cell of Ontario Muslims planning a bombing three times more powerful than Oklahoma City.

Mogadishu: An al-Qaida affiliate, the “Joint Islamic Courts,” took control of the Somali capital, displacing “U.S.-backed warlords.”

The world divides into those who think the above are all part of the same story and those who figure they’re strictly local items of no wider significance deriving from various regional factors:

In Baghdad and London, fury at Bush-Blair neocon-Zionist-Halliburton warmongering;

In Toronto, fury at Canadian multiculti-liberal-pantywaist warmongering – no, wait, that can’t be right. It must be frustration among certain, ah, ethno-cultural communities at insufficiently lavish levels of massive government social programs, to judge from the surreal conversation on NPR’s “Morning Edition” between Renee Montagne and the city’s mayor;

And in Mogadishu, well, that’s just one bunch of crazy Africans killing another bunch of crazy Africans – who the hell can figure that out? If Bono holds a celebrity fund-raising gala, we’ll all be glad to chip in 20 bucks.

If you choose to believe that, as Tip bin Neill might have put it, “all jihad is local,” so be it. You can listen to NPR discussions on whether Canada’s jihadist health- care programs are inadequately funded, and I’m sure you’ll be very happy. But out in the real world it seems the true globalization success story of the 1990s was the export of ideology from a relatively obscure part of the planet to the heart of every Western city.[/quote]

Read the whole thing. suntimes.com/output/steyn/cs … eyn11.html

2

Yeah, it’s a war. A real war. A war to the death. A war between us and them. World War III.

So where’s the draft?

3

The article does not mention Bush & Blair’s great achievement - the importation of Al-Qaeda Wahabism to Iraq.

4

[quote=“Muzha Man”]Yeah, it’s a war. A real war. A war to the death. A war between us and them. World War III.

So where’s the draft?[/quote]

Probably one very serious and deadly terrorist attack away.

5

agreed.

Nothing would please the Neo-Jacobins more, in my humble opinion!

:fume: http://www.newamericancentury.org/ :fume:

6

sign me up.

7

Ask the Democrats. They keep sponsoring the bills.

8

This is an interesting study done and just published by the Oxford Research Group. According to the data the war on terror is failing longterm and the absolutely wrong approach in handeling global security issues. According to their study, events like those mentioned by the OP are just a result of the WoT. So they are caused by it and not prevented. Surely an interesting read. Here is their abstract:

[quote=“Oxford Research Group”]
This major new report is the result of an 18-month long research project examining the various threats to global security, and sustainable responses to those threats.

Current security policies assume international terrorism to be the greatest threat to global security, and attempt to maintain the status quo and control insecurity through the projection of military force. The authors argue that the failure of this approach has been clearly demonstrated during the last five years of the ‘war on terror’ and it is distracting governments from the real threats that humanity faces.

Unless urgent action is taken within the next five to ten years, it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to avoid a highly unstable global system by the middle years of the century. [/quote]

And the webpage oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/p … hreats.htm
with the PDF download link. It is 40 pages long, so I have not read it all yet, but certainly will.

9

[quote=“ratlung”]This is an interesting study done and just published by the Oxford Research Group. … Here is their abstract:

[/quote]

Looks awfully stupid, IMO. Are these folks as clueless as they appear to be from the above statement?

Nobody is attempting to “maintain the status quo”… It was the status quo of the past 50 years that has created the current situation. The WOT is a new approach to dealing with a situation that was spiraling out of control due to 50 years of policy intent on maintaining the status quo.

And how the fuck do the events of the past 5 years illustrate any failure of the military approach when the only other approach that can be compared is the past 50 years of policy aimed at maintaining the status quo?

Its amazing what nonsense passes for scholarly study these days, isn’t it? :unamused:

10

Guys, it’s too early for this shit. Relax please

jdsmith
IP co-modem

11

It’s not a war. It’s a religious war, which is the worst kind because when you’re the right hand of God in a fight to the death with “ultimate evil” anything goes. The normal rules don’t apply. Hence torture, suicide bombings, indiscriminate killing of civilians without a shred of real remorse. Every crime eventually takes its turn being “rehabilitated” as a necessary evil.

Even simple common sense inevitably disappears in the face of this religious bloodlust disguised as righteous compassion. Normally decent, intelligent people fervently sign on to hopelessly unrealistic crusades such as this most recent one to dominate and forcibly convert more than a billion people with an army of 140,000, proving once again that those who are ignorant of history are condemned to repeat it.

12

I’d prefer not repeating WWII by waiting until it was too late to prevent anything at all.

13

[quote=“Tigerman”][quote=“ratlung”]This is an interesting study done and just published by the Oxford Research Group. … Here is their abstract:

[/quote]

Looks awfully stupid, IMO. Are these folks as clueless as they apper to be from the above statement?

Nobody is attempting to “maintain the status quo”… It was the status quo of the past 50 years that has created the current situation. The WOT is a new approach to dealing with a situation that was spiraling out of control due to 50 years of policy intent on maintaining the status quo.

And how the fuck do the events of the past 5 years illustrate any failure of the military approach when the only other approach that can be compared is the past 50 years of policy aimed at maintaining the status quo?

Its amazing what nonsense passes for scholarly study these days, isn’t it? :unamused:[/quote]

Maybe you should read the article first, or just look at the TOC, then you realize it is not only about the WoT but rather the current global security situation at its entirety. Just look at it before criticising single issue that you won’t be able to comprehent without know the whole.

14

Terrorism would probably just go away by itself if we just ignored it.

15

That’s uhm, how we got into this situation. You’re joking, right?

16

That’s uhm, how we got into this situation. You’re joking, right?[/quote]

I don’t know, perhaps if we accomodated the Muslims a bit more, just let them have their Sharia law in Western countries, adopted a few of their values, perhaps became Muslims ourselves, then they would like us and we could all be one world, one people. They’re really only a religious people, highly spiritual, who have deep beliefs and wish to make the world a better place.

Yes. I’m joking. :rainbow:

17

That’s uhm, how we got into this situation. You’re joking, right?[/quote]

How about trying to fight the source of the problem, not the symptoms.

18

That’s uhm, how we got into this situation. You’re joking, right?[/quote]

How about trying to fight the source of the problem, not the symptoms.[/quote]

How?

Is Saudi Arabia too poor to give its people a proper education? Is it too poor to help its neighbors out of poverty?

Are ANY Muslim countries in the ME too poor to handle their own problems, or just unwilling?

19

That’s uhm, how we got into this situation. You’re joking, right?[/quote]

How about trying to fight the source of the problem, not the symptoms.[/quote]

You must have an amazingly well thought-out strategy for achieving this. Care to share it?

20

Isn’t this all about larger governments choosing which smaller governments they wish to support, based firstly on natural resources and secondly on political alliances signed in the past? Isn’t it about the results of that favouritism? That some groups of people are angry over the systematic bombings and killings which their people face? That they don’t have a legal voice because it was silenced before they ever knew they’d need to speak? That schisms were made and lines were drawn and those that have lost out are rightfully pissed off over the injustice of it all?
Ultimately, isn’t this all about the desire to protect an Americans freedom to guzzle gas, over the rights of every single other living thing on the planet?
Religion is the cover, resources are the reason. Freedom to consume for some, granted by the suffering of others.