Nuklear bomb

[Friendly_flyer]

This discussion has remained surprisingly civil, I hope it will remain so.

Originally Posted by Splitter

Right and wrong have been obscured by moral relativism. People sitting nice and comfy in their homes watching TV have a hard time believing that there is evil in the world. They have an even harder time making sacrifices to fight evil "over there". I think we call that complacency? lol

When you are in a fight, or a famine or in any other situation where your life is in danger, "right" or "wrong" comes down to very simple questions of what will help you, your family or your tribe survive. When you sit peacefully in your secure home, warm and full, you have the luxury probing the concept of moral a bit deeper. There is where "relativism" comes into play. When you have 500 rabid and heavily armed Viet Kong storming your camp, your moral compass is to survive the night, and killing the enemy is very much right. When you are at home, you can dabble in thoughts on whether your nation should be over there in the first place, and whether the farmers who have given up their ploughs to become VC soldiers actually deserve to die.

Morale and resolve are not the same thing. The American (actually most of the Western) public in the early 1970ies was starting to wonder whether a war in Vietnam had any real bearing on their life. The general consensus seems to be that it did not, hence most people came to the conclusion the war itself was immoral. While moral thoughts was applied perhaps more than before, resolve withered away. Seeing the situation with the benefit of hindsight, a communist takeover in Vietnam did not threaten Western security. Considering the insane horrors sparked by the Vietnam war in Cambodia and to some extent in Laos, the war was indeed not worth fighting, and thus immoral.

So, will leaving the Arab world to their own devices in our day and age threaten our existence in the Western world? Do our current involvement in e.g. Afghanistan help improve our security situation, or will it only make us more enemies? To my mind, "resolve" to bomb our way is not a good idea.

All wars are ugly and when you try to fight them under the misguided conception that they can be "clean", well, you get Vietnam or Afghanistan.

I do beg the differ. There are wars that are less dirty than others. When nations invade other nations the fronts are usually a bit more clear cut, and the moral less dubious. How was the US resolve to fight during the First Gulf War? How about the war in Kosovo? While not on the same level as WWII (non of the aggressors posed any real any threat to the US), bout were relatively clear-cut. The enemy wore uniforms and were under orders. They even had tanks and planes and the soldiers surrendered when facing overwhelming forces. I do not remember any great problems with resolve back then.

The really, really dirty wars occur when the wars are highly asymmetrical, like in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and Vietnam. This is not just because the civil war/tribal war aspect, but also because the underdog (i.e. the insurgents) have everything to win by making the war as dirty as possible, and nothing to gain by fighting cleanly. A German soldier fighting in France in 1944 had nothing to gain from hiding in civilian clothing and attacking Allied soldiers in liberated France. Hence, the fighting was relatively "clean". To the Iraqi insurgents or the VC the same strategy was not only effective, it was often the only option available. Thus these wars became extraordinary dirty, "bad wars" as opposed to nation-against-nation "good wars".

It may possibly be that we are headed into a situation were the Western world is attacked openly in real war against our territories in the near future, but I really do not think so. Any war will probably be economical rather than military. "Moral fibre" to bomb some small patch of land to Kingdom Come to ward off perceived threats is in my mind not going to stop a war against the Western World, rather the opposite.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Friendly_flyer

This discussion has remained surprisingly civil, I hope it will remain so.



When you are in a fight, or a famine or in any other situation where your life is in danger, "right" or "wrong" comes down to very simple questions of what will help you, your family or your tribe survive. When you sit peacefully in your secure home, warm and full, you have the luxury probing the concept of moral a bit deeper. There is where "relativism" comes into play. When you have 500 rabid and heavily armed Viet Kong storming your camp, your moral compass is to survive the night, and killing the enemy is very much right. When you are at home, you can dabble in thoughts on whether your nation should be over there in the first place, and whether the farmers who have given up their ploughs to become VC soldiers actually deserve to die.

Morale and resolve are not the same thing. The American (actually most of the Western) public in the early 1970ies was starting to wonder whether a war in Vietnam had any real bearing on their life. The general consensus seems to be that it did not, hence most people came to the conclusion the war itself was immoral. While moral thoughts was applied perhaps more than before, resolve withered away. Seeing the situation with the benefit of hindsight, a communist takeover in Vietnam did not threaten Western security. Considering the insane horrors sparked by the Vietnam war in Cambodia and to some extent in Laos, the war was indeed not worth fighting, and thus immoral.

So, will leaving the Arab world to their own devices in our day and age threaten our existence in the Western world? Do our current involvement in e.g. Afghanistan help improve our security situation, or will it only make us more enemies? To my mind, "resolve" to bomb our way is not a good idea.



I do beg the differ. There are wars that are less dirty than others. When nations invade other nations the fronts are usually a bit more clear cut, and the moral less dubious. How was the US resolve to fight during the First Gulf War? How about the war in Kosovo? While not on the same level as WWII (non of the aggressors posed any real any threat to the US), bout were relatively clear-cut. The enemy wore uniforms and were under orders. They even had tanks and planes and the soldiers surrendered when facing overwhelming forces. I do not remember any great problems with resolve back then.

The really, really dirty wars occur when the wars are highly asymmetrical, like in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and Vietnam. This is not just because the civil war/tribal war aspect, but also because the underdog (i.e. the insurgents) have everything to win by making the war as dirty as possible, and nothing to gain by fighting cleanly. A German soldier fighting in France in 1944 had nothing to gain from hiding in civilian clothing and attacking Allied soldiers in liberated France. Hence, the fighting was relatively "clean". To the Iraqi insurgents or the VC the same strategy was not only effective, it was often the only option available. Thus these wars became extraordinary dirty, "bad wars" as opposed to nation-against-nation "good wars".

It may possibly be that we are headed into a situation were the Western world is attacked openly in real war against our territories in the near future, but I really do not think so. Any war will probably be economical rather than military. "Moral fibre" to bomb some small patch of land to Kingdom Come to ward off perceived threats is in my mind not going to stop a war against the Western World, rather the opposite.

Well said.

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by winny

Well said.

Very well said, actually, but short sighted.

Why go to war? That's the question it seems. Let us take the current situation in the middle east as an example.

In no particular order;

Oil: The Green Peace brigade (environmentalists if you will) would love a world that needed no carbon based fuels. That is at least a couple decades away (more). Oil is the fuel of the world economy. The world's economy collapses without free flowing, cheap oil. While that would make many of the environmentalists happy (who cares about economic collapse when a tenth of a degree of temperature change is at stake?), the rest of us see the horror of such a collapse.

No entity can be allowed to threaten or control the world's oil supply. By doing so they would control the world economy.

Israel: No matter what one may think about Israel, they are the only ally to the West in the middle east. They are hated by virtually all of their neighbors. But, they will not be abandoned by the West, nor should they be. The West will not allow Israel to be threatened and conquered. For the record, neither will Israel.

Nuclear Proliferation: When countries that actively work to eliminate other countries gain nuclear capability, the risks go sky high. When a country that espouses the destruction of Israel (the West's ally), the US (the lone remaining super power for the time being) and any allies to those countries gets nuclear capability, you have to consider the real possibility that they will use that new found power to bring about the destruction they have wanted.

Radicalism: People LOVE to point to the Crusades as a low point in civilization. Granted. That was 500 and more years ago. Similar motivations are present today, just not in the Christian world.

Moral Relativism: That's their culture, whatever they do is their business. Really? Is that still true when all the other circumstances described above come into play? "But Christians did it, this is no different!". Wrong, this is 500 years later. The world (or much of it) has evolved.

So when to fight? Do we wait until the enemy is on our doorstep? Do we believe and hope that they will never decide to come to our doorstep? Do we let the world economy collapse by giving over control of the world's most needed energy resource?

Leaving the Arab world to their own devices is a recipe for economic disaster, the destruction of Israel, and a guaranty that the "war" will be fought much closer to home in the years to come. Delaying the inevitable makes no sense when the other side can only get stronger and your side can only get weaker.

Is it the entire "people" of the middle east our enemy? Of course not, it is the radicals in charge of nations or in charge of militant organizations. Their numbers are not great but their power is. Do you think we can talk to them and come to an agreement? That is not possible because you (we) do not qualify as friends or even acceptable neighbors to the radicals. And some countries are controlled by radicals.

Ask yourself this: why would Iran want nuclear power (fuel recently supplied by Russia, BTW) when they are sitting on the world's second largest energy supply? It would have made much more economic sense to build refineries instead of reactors.

Answer: To be able to threaten their neighbors AND the larger powers in the world. It really is that simple. The leadership is radical.

Why should we keep nations out of the nuclear family? Is that fair? Why, yes when the new member of the nuclear family will seek to sell radioactive fuel, or nuclear devices, to organizations whose sole purpose for existence is the destruction of infidels. The new member of the nuclear family has continually expressed the desire to destroy other nations through violence.

One atom bomb is enough to ruin your whole day . Fight them there, or fight them when they attack your allies, or fight them when they are attacking "here". It really is the only choice unless the other side backs down. True? Do you expect the other side to back down? Do you expect them to accept "us" as world neighbors? Or will they do exactly what they have said their objective is?

Fighting for one's home or in a time of famine is about survival. Choosing to fight that battle at an earlier time to avoid those circumstances is intestinal fortitude. That is where we in the West are lacking right now. We would rather trade a few more years of relative peace and comfort for having to fight now. We are putting off the hard choices until tomorrow.

This is exactly where the Untied States was prior to WWII. How the Brits ever forgave us for abandoning them for so long is beyond me. But we were recovering from a depression (familiar?) and pretty comfy here with two huge oceans between us and invasion. The US did not want to go to war in Europe or the Pacific, we wanted to put that off and hope (HAH! Never works) that the situation would work itself out. It wasn't our war until Pearl.

Since then, we learned that the situation does not usually work itself out. Morally and strategically we have been right....tactically, because we do not want to fight dirty and costly wars, our execution has often been abysmal.

That's about the US....where is the rest of the world? WTF are the other countries doing as the sky is falling? Talking? Negotiating? Coming up with sanctions? Really, look at history...how often do those tactics really work?

Fight them on their terms, that's survival. Fight them on your own terms, that's a willingness to sacrifice today to avoid fighting for survival tomorrow.

Splitter

[AndyJWest]

Originally Posted by Splitter

Very well said, actually, but short sighted.

Why go to war? That's the question it seems. Let us take the current situation in the middle east as an example.

In no particular order;

Oil: The Green Peace brigade (environmentalists if you will) would love a world that needed no carbon based fuels. That is at least a couple decades away (more). Oil is the fuel of the world economy. The world's economy collapses without free flowing, cheap oil. While that would make many of the environmentalists happy (who cares about economic collapse when a tenth of a degree of temperature change is at stake?), the rest of us see the horror of such a collapse.

No entity can be allowed to threaten or control the world's oil supply. By doing so they would control the world economy.

Israel: No matter what one may think about Israel, they are the only ally to the West in the middle east. They are hated by virtually all of their neighbors. But, they will not be abandoned by the West, nor should they be. The West will not allow Israel to be threatened and conquered. For the record, neither will Israel.

Nuclear Proliferation: When countries that actively work to eliminate other countries gain nuclear capability, the risks go sky high. When a country that espouses the destruction of Israel (the West's ally), the US (the lone remaining super power for the time being) and any allies to those countries gets nuclear capability, you have to consider the real possibility that they will use that new found power to bring about the destruction they have wanted.

Radicalism: People LOVE to point to the Crusades as a low point in civilization. Granted. That was 500 and more years ago. Similar motivations are present today, just not in the Christian world.

Moral Relativism: That's their culture, whatever they do is their business. Really? Is that still true when all the other circumstances described above come into play? "But Christians did it, this is no different!". Wrong, this is 500 years later. The world (or much of it) has evolved.

So when to fight? Do we wait until the enemy is on our doorstep? Do we believe and hope that they will never decide to come to our doorstep? Do we let the world economy collapse by giving over control of the world's most needed energy resource?

Leaving the Arab world to their own devices is a recipe for economic disaster, the destruction of Israel, and a guaranty that the "war" will be fought much closer to home in the years to come. Delaying the inevitable makes no sense when the other side can only get stronger and your side can only get weaker.

Is it the entire "people" of the middle east our enemy? Of course not, it is the radicals in charge of nations or in charge of militant organizations. Their numbers are not great but their power is. Do you think we can talk to them and come to an agreement? That is not possible because you (we) do not qualify as friends or even acceptable neighbors to the radicals. And some countries are controlled by radicals.

Ask yourself this: why would Iran want nuclear power (fuel recently supplied by Russia, BTW) when they are sitting on the world's second largest energy supply? It would have made much more economic sense to build refineries instead of reactors.

Answer: To be able to threaten their neighbors AND the larger powers in the world. It really is that simple. The leadership is radical.

Why should we keep nations out of the nuclear family? Is that fair? Why, yes when the new member of the nuclear family will seek to sell radioactive fuel, or nuclear devices, to organizations whose sole purpose for existence is the destruction of infidels. The new member of the nuclear family has continually expressed the desire to destroy other nations through violence.

One atom bomb is enough to ruin your whole day . Fight them there, or fight them when they attack your allies, or fight them when they are attacking "here". It really is the only choice unless the other side backs down. True? Do you expect the other side to back down? Do you expect them to accept "us" as world neighbors? Or will they do exactly what they have said their objective is?

Fighting for one's home or in a time of famine is about survival. Choosing to fight that battle at an earlier time to avoid those circumstances is intestinal fortitude. That is where we in the West are lacking right now. We would rather trade a few more years of relative peace and comfort for having to fight now. We are putting off the hard choices until tomorrow.

This is exactly where the Untied States was prior to WWII. How the Brits ever forgave us for abandoning them for so long is beyond me. But we were recovering from a depression (familiar?) and pretty comfy here with two huge oceans between us and invasion. The US did not want to go to war in Europe or the Pacific, we wanted to put that off and hope (HAH! Never works) that the situation would work itself out. It wasn't our war until Pearl.

Since then, we learned that the situation does not usually work itself out. Morally and strategically we have been right....tactically, because we do not want to fight dirty and costly wars, our execution has often been abysmal.

That's about the US....where is the rest of the world? WTF are the other countries doing as the sky is falling? Talking? Negotiating? Coming up with sanctions? Really, look at history...how often do those tactics really work?

Fight them on their terms, that's survival. Fight them on your own terms, that's a willingness to sacrifice today to avoid fighting for survival tomorrow.

Splitter

Well, you've shown us where you stand. With the aggressors. With the warmongers. With the people who use imaginary 'weapons of mass destruction' to justify invasions. Above all, with hypocrisy.

Israel, along those who assisted it (principally the US, but also other western countries), is largely responsible for the nuclear arms race in the middle east. Israel has systematically acquired territory from it's neighbours through conquest, and has carried out numerous acts that were they perpetrated by an 'arab' country (not that the Iranians are Arabs) would be classified by many as terrorism. Indeed, if you look beneath the surface propaganda of middle eastern politics, it isn't that unusual to find Israeli involvement in the murkiest places - there is some evidence that they provided Hamas with funds in it's early years, and they were certainly involved with supplying arms to Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. The Israelis certainly worked tirelessly in Lebanon for years stirring up inter-communal conflict. This sort of hogwash might work in US politics, but in much of the rest of the world, it is seen for what it is - a self-serving 'justification' for US aggression in the middle east, based on little more than crude stereotypes, and the profit to be derived from crude oil. The United States (or any outside power) has no more right to 'intervene' in the middle east than Venezuela has to 'intervene' in the US, or Iceland has to invade Sri Lanka. Inventing bogus 'threats' is an old tactic used to justify aggression. If there is a major war in the near future, US foreign policy is more likely than not to be at the root of it - as indeed it was in the case of Iran, where the US-backed Shah's oppressive measures opened the way for the current bunch of loons to seize power.

In any case, If one is going to make bogus comparisons with the 1930s, I'd be careful that others don't decide to do the same, but placing the jackboot under the banner of the Stars and Stripes. I think such comparisons are wrong, not least because the US population isn't as gullible as such comparisons suggest, and shows strong evidence for rejection of such simplistic 'us vs them' propaganda - they are becoming increasingly sceptical about involvement in foreign wars that seem to achieve little except lining the pockets of the arms industry and their associates.

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

Well, you've shown us where you stand. With the aggressors. With the warmongers. With the people who use imaginary 'weapons of mass destruction' to justify invasions. Above all, with hypocrisy.

Israel, along those who assisted it (principally the US, but also other western countries), is largely responsible for the nuclear arms race in the middle east. Israel has systematically acquired territory from it's neighbours through conquest, and has carried out numerous acts that were they perpetrated by an 'arab' country (not that the Iranians are Arabs) would be classified by many as terrorism. Indeed, if you look beneath the surface propaganda of middle eastern politics, it isn't that unusual to find Israeli involvement in the murkiest places - there is some evidence that they provided Hamas with funds in it's early years, and they were certainly involved with supplying arms to Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. The Israelis certainly worked tirelessly in Lebanon for years stirring up inter-communal conflict. This sort of hogwash might work in US politics, but in much of the rest of the world, it is seen for what it is - a self-serving 'justification' for US aggression in the middle east, based on little more than crude stereotypes, and the profit to be derived from crude oil. The United States (or any outside power) has no more right to 'intervene' in the middle east than Venezuela has to 'intervene' in the US, or Iceland has to invade Sri Lanka. Inventing bogus 'threats' is an old tactic used to justify aggression. If there is a major war in the near future, US foreign policy is more likely than not to be at the root of it - as indeed it was in the case of Iran, where the US-backed Shah's oppressive measures opened the way for the current bunch of loons to seize power.

In any case, If one is going to make bogus comparisons with the 1930s, I'd be careful that others don't decide to do the same, but placing the jackboot under the banner of the Stars and Stripes. I think such comparisons are wrong, not least because the US population isn't as gullible as such comparisons suggest, and shows strong evidence for rejection of such simplistic 'us vs them' propaganda - they are becoming increasingly sceptical about involvement in foreign wars that seem to achieve little except lining the pockets of the arms industry and their associates.

So can I summarize by saying:

US = evil
Israel = evil.
Middle Eastern Radicals = no real threat (bogus I think you said).
Jackboots = Nazis

Thank you for being honest about your dislike for the USA. I mean that. It is tiresome when people hide behind vague references. I applaud you for being up front about it (though the Nazi reference was probably a bit over the top, don't you think?).

I thank you also for proving my points about moral relativism and complacency. You do not see significant threats in that area of the world. Understood. You would rather we (the present day "allies") not be involved there and let them sort things out. I'm guessing you do think we should talk with them, understand them better, and maybe negotiate solutions to whatever problems may exist.

There is a very good chance your vision will be what happens unless someone (Israel) decides that Iran is too dangerous to have nukes. The US certainly isn't going to do anything about it any time soon. Neither will the UN. Russia will play neutral or back Iran. China will back Iran for now. So chances are, nothing militarily will be done.

When the mushroom cloud from a bomb supplied by Iran, N. Korea, or China is rising over some city in the world, I will be here with the ghost of Neville Chamberlain (I am sure he has figured it out by now) to say "told ya so" lol.

Wait...if it's DC the fallout will probably get me in which case look me up when you get to the other side and we'll have a pint .

Splitter

[AndyJWest]

Originally Posted by Splitter

So can I summarize by saying:

US = evil
Israel = evil.
Middle Eastern Radicals = no real threat (bogus I think you said).
Jackboots = Nazis

Thank you for being honest about your dislike for the USA. I mean that. It is tiresome when people hide behind vague references. I applaud you for being up front about it (though the Nazi reference was probably a bit over the top, don't you think?).

I thank you also for proving my points about moral relativism and complacency. You do not see significant threats in that area of the world. Understood. You would rather we (the present day "allies") not be involved there and let them sort things out. I'm guessing you do think we should talk with them, understand them better, and maybe negotiate solutions to whatever problems may exist.

There is a very good chance your vision will be what happens unless someone (Israel) decides that Iran is too dangerous to have nukes. The US certainly isn't going to do anything about it any time soon. Neither will the UN. Russia will play neutral or back Iran. China will back Iran for now. So chances are, nothing militarily will be done.

When the mushroom cloud from a bomb supplied by Iran, N. Korea, or China is rising over some city in the world, I will be here with the ghost of Neville Chamberlain (I am sure he has figured it out by now) to say "told ya so" lol.

Wait...if it's DC the fallout will probably get me in which case look me up when you get to the other side and we'll have a pint .

Splitter

"The Nazi reference was probably a bit over the top, don't you think?" No. I thought it was irrelevant to an analysis of the current world political situation, which is why I suggested that you should think more before using it, with your 'appeasement' analogies. I haven't called anyone 'evil' either. And where exactly have I come out with 'moral relativism'? Do you actually know what the term means? I have no 'dislike for the USA' - what I dislike is people who take it upon themselves to tell the outside world what the US thinks, while at the same time telling the US population what it ought to think, and then claim to be defending 'freedom' or 'democracy'?

Are 'middle eastern radicals' a threat to world peace? Yes, quite possibly, but so are supporters of US quasi-imperialist tactics, and uncritical supporters of the State of Israel. And the latter have more weapons.

[drewpee]

It would be nice to see religion and politics kept out of a forum thats dedicated to an online gaming community that promotes mutual respect, fun and fair play.

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

"The Nazi reference was probably a bit over the top, don't you think?" No. I thought it was irrelevant to an analysis of the current world political situation, which is why I suggested that you should think more before using it, with your 'appeasement' analogies. I haven't called anyone 'evil' either. And where exactly have I come out with 'moral relativism'? Do you actually know what the term means? I have no 'dislike for the USA' - what I dislike is people who take it upon themselves to tell the outside world what the US thinks, while at the same time telling the US population what it ought to think, and then claim to be defending 'freedom' or 'democracy'?

Are 'middle eastern radicals' a threat to world peace? Yes, quite possibly, but so are supporters of US quasi-imperialist tactics, and uncritical supporters of the State of Israel. And the latter have more weapons.

You do understand that I have spent quite a few words criticizing my own country, right? A third of this country believes as you do. A third believes as I do. The other third is completely clueless. So I can't tell you what the USA currently thinks...because we are as divided as the world is.

PSSSST, that's why we are the world's last remaining super power....for about the next five minutes lol. If things continue as they are now, we are on the decline and will be looking up at China. So not to worry.

I'm not sure about the quasi imperialism stuff because I certainly haven't received my share of the ill gotten booty . And these wars seem to be a big part in our slide toward bankruptcy. And my gas still isn't cheap, as a matter of fact it's more expensive. We are spread so thin in Iraq and Afghanistan that we really don't have the resources to respond to a threat anywhere else (did I mention that we are about $13 trillion beyond broke?). So I guess we are just not very good at this imperialism stuff .

I think it is telling that you believe that the US and Israel are as dangerous to the world as Iran, N. Korea, or China.

Let me ask you this, can we pretend for a second that we transplant every Israeli to the American west? Hell, we have huge tracts of desert we don't use. Let us also pretend that we pull out every foreign soldier from the Middle East. Lastly, let's pretend that renewable fuels were available just a bit cheaper than oil.

What would the world look like? Would there be peace in the Middle East finally? Would the radicals fall by the wayside? Would the rest of the world be safe from the leaders in Iran or Alqaeda? Could we all just get along?

If you can answer yes to those questions, you are a great optimist.

Splitter

EDIT: Drewpee (great screen name, BTW), this is relevant because however one views the situation, we are repeating history from some viewpoint.

[Friendly_flyer]

This discussion has moved fast. I would just like to apologise to Blackdog for suggesting the Kosovo war was "clarcut". It was not, but it was a lot less muddy that the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, possibly because parts of the Serbian opposition was the regular army rather than semi-civilian insurgents.

I would also like to comment on the "Why go to war" post by Splitter:

Originally Posted by Splitter

Why go to war? That's the question it seems. Let us take the current situation in the middle east as an example.
...
Oil
…
No entity can be allowed to threaten or control the world's oil supply. By doing so they would control the world economy.
…
Israel
…
Nuclear Proliferation
…
Radicalism
…
Fight them on their terms, that's survival. Fight them on your own terms, that's a willingness to sacrifice today to avoid fighting for survival tomorrow.

What you are describing is pre-emptive war. The main problem with fighting pre-emptive wars are that the invariably turn into “bad wars”. Just look at the points you cited above: How do you achieve secure oil supply, stop other nations from influencing oil prices, secure Israel’s existence and stop countries from wanting to have nuclear arms by attacking them? How do you prevent radicalisation of a country by attacking it?

The objectives you cite are civilian parameters, and do not naturally translate into military objectives. Any war fought in a far away country on these terms is bound to end up in an unfocused campaign with obscure military objectives. At home, the backing for this kind of warfare is going to drop fast. If you can’t achieve what you set out to do in 2-3 years, people are going to ask themselves whet the heck their nation is doing in this war in the first place. And as I am sure you can see, non of the above objectives can be reached in that timeframe.

The second factor is that pre-emptive wars are deemed morally wrong and are actually forbidden by international law. Your allies won’t like it. Yes, you do have to wait until your country is under direct threat! It may not be what a world superpower wants to hear, but is nevertheless the law. And there are good reasons for it being so. If the notion of pre-emptive wars being legal was true, the German attack on Sovjet in 1941 would be a perfectly just war: war between Nazi-Germany and the Sovjet Union was inevitable, Hitler just happened to attack first. The same goes for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour. Had Japan expanded their empire into the Pacific, a war with the US would have ensued, Japan just happened to strike first in a hope of taking out the US fleet and stop them from entering sooner rather than later. You could even translate it to the modern day and say that Al-Qaida happened to strike first in the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre. Laws go bout ways, if the US can legally meddle in other states affairs, then so can Al-Qaida. However, such actions are wrong, morally and juridically.

The only way one can justify talking about “moral fibre” and accuse the opposition for relativism in connection to pre-emptive wars is by carefully changing the definition of the words. Only by calling resolve “moral fibre”, and calling ethics and moral “moral relativism” and use it as a degrading term can one make pre-emptive wars seem just. This is called “newspeak”, and I am sure Andy is going to enlighten you on the concept if you are not familiar with it.

[Splitter]

Greece: I had no idea so much European "fall out" was effecting them. It make sense, Greece has always been in a strategically significant position. Greece was just the first to fall, others are teetering and may follow shortly. As "larger" nations fall, baling them out is going to become more and more difficult and possibly lead to still larger nations falling.

Preemptive wars: Interesting take, Friendly. What you write is true until there is a "direct threat" to one's nation. What people will argue over is when a threat becomes a direct threat.

US foreign policy changed in the early 21st century. We no longer took an approach of "measured response" to attacks. In the 90's, under Clinton, if you blew up one of our ships, we might take out one of your training camps and call it even. That sort of policy emboldened adversaries and led to more attacks.

After 9/11, we decided that anyone who supported terrorism was a direct threat. People point to the absence of WMD's in Iraq as evidence that the war was not justified. While it is true that most intelligence sources agreed (foreign and domestic) that Iraq had WMD's, they were not the only only reason we went to get Saddam.

Saddam was thumbing his nose at UN inspectors, financially supporting terrorist organizations, and preaching for the destruction of the West. Did he have WMD's? The answer appears to be no, but he had used them in the past (and nothing says that he had them and shipped them elsewhere prior to the invasion). For those reasons, he was deemed to be a direct threat.

Do preemptive strikes work? People want to say "no", but if you will remember, Khadafi was a supporter of terrorism at one time. A series of strikes that almost got him, and killed some of his family, led him to get out of the terrorism business. His decision stopped any further action against him. So, yes, they can work.

The attacks against Libya were VERY controversial at the time on the foreign front. France would not even let our bombers fly over their territory (from England) on the way.

Convoluted American Politics.: Liberals (Democrats) in the US did not want to go to war in Iraq. They wanted to go to war in Afghanistan where the Taliban was supporting Al-Qaeda who had brought down the world trade center. They didn't see a direct link between Saddam and the 9/11 attacks.

Conservatives (Republicans) wanted to go to Iraq and Bush was a Republican. So we went to Iraq first and took out that threat.

Now the Democrats are making the mistake of reversing themselves in Afghanistan and wanting to withdraw our troops. Even when commanders on the ground said they needed "X" number of troops, the present President would only send a portion of the troops requested (same as Vietnam). Now, all that our opponents need to do is wait until we pull our troops out of Afghanistan and they can come in and take over. We certainly won't be "winning" that war in the time frame allotted, with the present rules of engagement, and with the resources that are there.

It appears that Iraq will be much more stable as we draw down troops levels, but that could (and probably will) change. Many of us think we were unwise to stay there and that we should have left and let the different factions battle it out among themselves. They hate each other almost as much as the US lol. And if they are fighting each other, they won't be exporting their war.

People bash me for seeing world politics in a "pessimistic" light. That some nation's leaders are "evil" and that there are powerful people in the world who want to destroy anyone who doesn't believe their way. Obviously, I say that such a view is only "realistic" given world history and WWII is a great example of that.

Put simply, if other nations will not respect yours, you better hope they have enough fear of your nation to make them leave you alone. If they lack either a basic respect or fear of retaliation, your nation will be attacked in some way. This plays out over and over again on the world stage.

So the answer, Friendly, to the question of how you prevent the "radicalization" of a country is to make the rewards for rejecting the radical beliefs too great to ignore. And, of course, the consequences for accepting the radical believes too severe. You want them to either respect you enough to reject those beliefs or fear you enough to reject those beliefs. If you fail on both counts, the radicals take over and come after you.

Example: Did Hitler fear France? Did he respect France's sovereignty? Answers are no and no. Hitler takes France.

Example: Did Japan fear the US? Did Japan respect US sovereignty enough to prevent them from attacking US territories? The answers are more vague. No they did not respect US sovereignty within their sphere of influence, but they did fear US might.....just not enough.

Example: Did Hitler fear Britain? Did he respect their sovereignty? While he did not respect their sovereignty, he did fear them enough (after being shown) to not throw his troops away on an invasion.

Lesson: As long as there are bad people in the world, stay strong. Bad people won't respect you but they may fear you enough to leave you alone.

Splitter