Level Extreme platform
Subscription
Corporate profile
Products & Services
Support
Legal
Français
Mike Farrell speaks
Message
From
12/07/2006 17:55:31
 
 
To
12/07/2006 16:46:50
General information
Forum:
Politics
Category:
Other
Miscellaneous
Thread ID:
01124779
Message ID:
01135882
Views:
14
>SNIP>
>>Many more are going to in the near future. See events in Gaza, Lebanon and India this week. This is not going away. Islamic fundamentalists have declared war on the free world and we can either choose to fight it now or let it fester for another generation and let our children deal with it with even nastier weapons.
>>
>
>Hi Jake,
>
>I agree that Islamic Fundamentalism has declared war, and I don't think that they've restricted it to the "free world".

Perhaps not restricted, but that is clearly where the overwhelming amount of their rhetoric and attacks have been directed.

>My issue is with the concept of a declaration of war against "terrorism".
>First, as said earlier, many other countries are in a big battle against terrorism but they haven't seen the need to declare war. They are fighting it aggressively through cooperation and enacting special laws and by restricting the 'battles' within the confines of their own borders.

One may argue that most countries don't have the ability to affect terrorists outside their own borders (let alone within) wheras the US can. I'll concede that the fact that the US "can" doesn't necessarily mean that they "should". I believe that we should but I understand why others feel differently.

>The Islamic Fundamentalistshave decalred war, but their chances of winning are NIL. There is absolutely no way they can take over the U.S. or Canada or the U.K. or any other reasonably established country. Period.
>Yes, they can inflict severe damage and steps MUST be taken to prevent that, but declaring war is way out over the line as I see it.
>
>To me the U.S. being in a "state of war" has been done strictly for political advantage and particularly by/for those people who dream of a different U.S. than its evolution over the last 40-50 years. A small group who, in essence, feel a deep-seated need to impose their own brand of "fundamentalism" on the U.S. and the world.
>
>You say you think it's a good thing that freedom should be spread as far and wide as possible and you support that wholeheartedly.

Yes

>You don't really think that the vast majority of the U.N. thinks differently, do you?

"Vast majority?" No. I do believe that China is opposed. I also believe that there are great number of anti-US leaning nations in the UN that have been undermining the war on terror since its inception, and escalated their vitriol after the Iraq invasion. There are also several dictatorships which are absolutely against the spread of freedom. Who's heading that human rights council now?

My problem with the UN is that without the US it has zero teeth. If it's not there already, it is quickly becomming a corrupt debating society with no chance of improving anything but the personal fortunes of its ambassadors. Either the entire body needs to be reformed so that it can actually affect change in the world or a new organization needs to be formed.

>If you do, let me correct you - they do feel that freedom and liberty are great things for any/all people.
>So, what was the rush to war with Iraq? A little more patience might well have exposed Saddam for the charlatan he's been proven to be ...

We differ because I believe that 12 years was enough patience. He was already exposed, even when he finally let the inspectors back in he was continuing his pattern of deception.

>and freedom could have been 'imposed' from within Iraq.

I really wish this is the way history would've unfolded after the 1st Gulf War. The US should have followed through on its plan to fund, train and encourage the uprisings, instead of bailing out on them and then allowing Saddam to crush them before imposing the no-fly zones.

>The rush, sadly, was the U.S. fundamentalists grabbing their big once-in-a-lifetime chance to take a shot at building their vision of the world.

Again I do not believe 12 years is a rush.

>What's saddest of all is that they've used words that can be interpreted in many ways and few 'regular folk' would even suspect the rigorous interpretations the perpetrators are using AMONGST THEMSELVES. If they end up with their heart's desire most of us will wake up one day and ask "what the hell happened?!?!".

What is this vision you are so scared of?

>
>cheers
>
>SNIP
Wine is sunlight, held together by water - Galileo Galilei
Un jour sans vin est comme un jour sans soleil - Louis Pasteur
Water separates the people of the world; wine unites them - anonymous
Wine is the most civilized thing in the world - Ernest Hemingway
Wine makes daily living easier, less hurried, with fewer tensions and more tolerance - Benjamin Franklin
Previous
Reply
Map
View

Click here to load this message in the networking platform