WWIII

[Liam]

So we're talking about reaction to terrorism and not the capacity of terrorism to inflict any major damage on its own. Now, it seems to me, a large element of terrorism is psychologial and thus, any effort to fight terrorism should address that by putting terrorism in context. That is: terrorism is not ever likely to pose a threat our survival and way of life. Unfortunately, it seems that the society is going the other way, led by the bedwetters on the right like Mark Steyn who soil their trousers if they happen to see a swarthy guy with a beard sitting in coach, which, really, is making the jobs of those who would seek to terrorize us that much easier.

The greater power of terrorism is not in the destruction within the "blast zone," but the lingering impact it has on the survivors and witnesses. Part of that impact is how the survivors react, how they cope afterward, how they change their behavior. I think it would be against the nature of most people to simply shrug off a major terror attack and just go back to work or the mall or ride on a subway right away. And I also think it would be against human nature to not want to take steps to prevent similar (or evolving) future attacks, so news laws get drafted... and people even start having discussions about which freedoms can we sacrifice for 10% more security. So, I disagree that it is not ever likely to pose a threat to our survival or way of life. Terror and its effects have very real impacts on our ability to survive and on our way of life.

What belief systems were clashing in World war 1? Militaristic imperialism and, uh, militaristic imperialism. World War 2 fit the bill a bit better, but was essentially a clash of totalitarian ideologies, with the liberal democracies as bit players. Indeed by your definition, the only true world war was the one where the principle players never fired a shot at each other, the Cold War. In each of those cases, though, the war was characterized by the relative parity of the participants. The main reason why radical Islam versus western liberal values (such as they are) fails to qualify is that it will reamin a clash of idea characterized by small skirmishes in which one side enjoys a overwhelming advantage over the other in terms of military strength, economic clout and political power.

True, WW1 was a battle between two groups of dying monarchial states and not really one of competing ideologies. Regarding WW2, I disagree that it was essentially a clash of totalitarian ideologies. Really?? I never knew that in opposing fascism, Britain, Canada, and the US were either defending their own particular totalitarian ideology or mere bit players. The Soviets, yes, but I think several thousand veterans and thousands of historians would disagree that the North Atlantic allies fighting the Nazis were doing so to defend their brand of totalitarianism or that we were mere bit players in a larger global struggle.

Regarding the rest, you seem to be clinging to a definition of war (world war) that relies solely on armaments, field of battle, nation v. nation, army v. army, tanks, guns, ammo, bombers and war rooms with huge maps. War evolves. WW1 was 100% turf battle. WW2 was 70% turf battle, 30% ideological struggle. The Cold War was 70% ideological chess, 30% satellite skirmishes (Korea, Vietnam, Angola, Cuba, Nicaragua, etc.). The latest war is (so far) more along the lines of 90% ideology, 10% traditional field war.

I am not at all a fan of war and oppose almost everything Bush has done, but I do agree that we *are* in the midst of an enormous global battle which I consider a world war. It's not one that will be won on a battlefield, though. It is something that will require an enormous rethinking of how the west and Islamic world interact and the winning side will be the one that presents the ideology that appeals to the vast majority of people. Regretably, I think it is a war that Bush is ill-equipped to wage on our behalf.

[Black Dog]

The greater power of terrorism is not in the destruction within the "blast zone," but the lingering impact it has on the survivors and witnesses. Part of that impact is how the survivors react, how they cope afterward, how they change their behavior. I think it would be against the nature of most people to simply shrug off a major terror attack and just go back to work or the mall or ride on a subway right away.

You're still talking about people who are more or less directly involved, which will still be a small minority. If I'm in L.A. and there's a terrorist attack in new York, the direct effects will be negligible. Mnimizing the psychological effects you mention shold be part of any anti-terrorism strategy. IOW, if terrorism is about spreading fear, then those who claim to be fighting terrorism shouldn't be contributing to the fear.

And I also think it would be against human nature to not want to take steps to prevent similar (or evolving) future attacks, so news laws get drafted... and people even start having discussions about which freedoms can we sacrifice for 10% more security. So, I disagree that it is not ever likely to pose a threat to our survival or way of life. Terror and its effects have very real impacts on our ability to survive and on our way of life

Again: this is a question of how we choose to react. If, for example, society deems it necessary (inasmuch as society can force such things) to sacrifice individual freedoms to prevent future terror attacks, that's a choice, not an inevitable consequense of terrorism. So, yeah, I suppose terrorism can impact our ability to survive and our way of life if we choose to allow it to.

True, WW1 was a battle between two groups of dying monarchial states and not really one of competing ideologies. Regarding WW2, I disagree that it was essentially a clash of totalitarian ideologies. Really?? I never knew that in opposing fascism, Britain, Canada, and the US were either defending their own particular totalitarian ideology or mere bit players. The Soviets, yes, but I think several thousand veterans and thousands of historians would disagree that the North Atlantic allies fighting the Nazis were doing so to defend their brand of totalitarianism or that we were mere bit players in a larger global struggle.

Britain and the Commonwealth and the United States played a minor role in beating the Nazis. That's a simple fact. Oh sure, they played a role but if Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union not come to blows, Europe would have languished firmly in the grip of one branmd of tyrranny or another. The western liberal democracies simply did not have the means of dislodiging Hitler.

Regarding the rest, you seem to be clinging to a definition of war (world war) that relies solely on armaments, field of battle, nation v. nation, army v. army, tanks, guns, ammo, bombers and war rooms with huge maps. War evolves. WW1 was 100% turf battle. WW2 was 70% turf battle, 30% ideological struggle. The Cold War was 70% ideological chess, 30% satellite skirmishes (Korea, Vietnam, Angola, Cuba, Nicaragua, etc.). The latest war is (so far) more along the lines of 90% ideology, 10% traditional field war.

Well, I happen to think a term like "world war" requires a more percise defintion than a nebulous "global idealogical struggle". Which is why I would also reject characterizing the Cold War as a world war. As for the current global conflict, which pits states versus ideologically-driven non-state actors, perhaps a new definition is necessary as opposed to a corruption of an existing one.

[M.Dancer]

If I'm in L.A. and there's a terrorist attack in new York, the direct effects will be negligible.

If you live in a shell.....yes.

But if you fly, deal with gov't staff.....Lets put it this way, there was an attack on the London transit system..transit systems everywhere felt it and adjusted to some degree their behavior.

Britain and the Commonwealth and the United States played a minor role in beating the Nazis. That's a simple fact. Oh sure, they played a role but if Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union not come to blows, Europe would have languished firmly in the grip of one branmd of tyrranny or another. The western liberal democracies simply did not have the means of dislodiging Hitler.

What they didn't have, was not the means but the place. Before the USSR was engaged, the axis was being fought in north africa. The problem that faced Churchill was where to attack (given that the logistic demands of a sea borne invasion would not be solved quickly) ....and so they attacked where ever they could. But most importantly they fought the Nazis....and defeated them (without the help of the USSR) on the oceans, and won the battle of the atlantic.

as to the soviet union, had the commonwealth not won the battle of the atlantic there by making the resupply of the soviet union possible, the USSR may have fallen.

[Black Dog]

If you live in a shell.....yes.

But if you fly, deal with gov't staff.....Lets put it this way, there was an attack on the London transit system..transit systems everywhere felt it and adjusted to some degree their behavior.

Yeah: by choice. IOW terrorism's power is in how we react to it. Terrorism itself can't accomplish anything as dramatic as the collapse of western civilization.

What they didn't have, was not the means but the place. Before the USSR was engaged, the axis was being fought in north africa. The problem that faced Churchill was where to attack (given that the logistic demands of a sea borne invasion would not be solved quickly) ....and so they attacked where ever they could. But most importantly they fought the Nazis....and defeated them (without the help of the USSR) on the oceans, and won the battle of the atlantic.

as to the soviet union, had the commonwealth not won the battle of the atlantic there by making the resupply of the soviet union possible, the USSR may have fallen.

None of which counters what I said. The Allies played a role, but the Soviet Union did all the heavy lifting.

[Liam]

You're still talking about people who are more or less directly involved, which will still be a small minority. If I'm in L.A. and there's a terrorist attack in new York, the direct effects will be negligible. Mnimizing the psychological effects you mention shold be part of any anti-terrorism strategy. IOW, if terrorism is about spreading fear, then those who claim to be fighting terrorism shouldn't be contributing to the fear... Again: this is a question of how we choose to react. ... So, yeah, I suppose terrorism can impact our ability to survive and our way of life if we choose to allow it to.

By survivors and witnesses, I should have been more clear. I didn't mean just those individuals who were within the blast zone but who survived. In the day of televised history, we are all either survivors or witnesses to an attack. I should have been more clear.

About WW2, the western allies (US, Canada, Britain, Australia, France) would have had an enormous disadvantage had Hitler not invaded the USSR and the USSR can largely take credit for defeating Germany, but I'd hardly describe the retaking of North Africa, the invasion and defeat of Italy, the invasion of Normandy, the atoll hopping in the Pacific, and the defeat of Japan as being the acts of mere bit players.

[Black Dog]

By survivors and witnesses, I should have been more clear. I didn't mean just those individuals who were within the blast zone but who survived. In the day of televised history, we are all either survivors or witnesses to an attack. I should have been more clear.

I got that, but my point remains that the best way to fight terrorism is to teach people not to freak out about it. Part of that would entail not throwing terms like "World War" around willy-nilly.

[JerrySeinfeld]

By survivors and witnesses, I should have been more clear. I didn't mean just those individuals who were within the blast zone but who survived. In the day of televised history, we are all either survivors or witnesses to an attack. I should have been more clear.

I got that, but my point remains that the best way to fight terrorism is to teach people not to freak out about it. Part of that would entail not throwing terms like "World War" around willy-nilly.

WIlly nilly? Who ya gonna believe? The multi culti elite or your lyin' eyes?

[Black Dog]

That gets a big

[JerrySeinfeld]

Intersting thing for the "this is not a war, let's run home with our tail between our legs"...there isn't really a problem until it's too late.

it's actually quite unbelievable that our enemies sit out plain as day and annouce their intentions and our soft and ridiculously "tolerant" society still finds ways to loathe our OWN country and apologize for Hezbollah and Ahmedinejad.

This is a long war which has been developing for decades and is now heating up. It IS a wold war, which most leftyies won't admit until it's too late.

Iran has clear intentions: they don't even hide them and we still back down. Bin Laden once said "in a long war, the strong horse wins".

Hezbollah starts a war then hides behind it's own women and childeren, resulting in vast numbers of dead an injured Lebanese - yet the streets are filled with people chanting "Hezbollah" and waving their flags.

Our countries go to war and lose the least amount of soldiers than in any other war in history and we're running around like ninnies demanding that we lose.

You tell me who the strong horse is in this war? Not us - not with our newfound societal self loathing.

Can you imagine if in the 1940's the UN was in REAL TIME publishing troop movements of the Allies? or a Press Corps eager to point our the need to "stand down" and "negotiate" with Hitler?

NATIONS go to war, not SOLDIERS.

[Black Dog]

it's actually quite unbelievable that our enemies sit out plain as day and annouce their intentions and our soft and ridiculously "tolerant" society still finds ways to loathe our OWN country and apologize for Hezbollah and Ahmedinejad.

Uh...here's the thing. They can announce their intention to do all the nasty things that keep you in Depends until their throats are hoarse. That doesn't give them the ability to actually follow through. I can declare my intention to flap my arms and fly to the moon, but I think we know how that would turn out.

Iran has clear intentions: they don't even hide them and we still back down. Bin Laden once said "in a long war, the strong horse wins".

Hey, Iran has stated repeatedly that their nuclear program is for peaceful use only. Yet you don't give those public statements the same credence you do the one's about "wiping Israel from the pages of history". If one is so credible, why not the other?

Hezbollah starts a war then hides behind it's own women and childeren, resulting in vast numbers of dead an injured Lebanese - yet the streets are filled with people chanting "Hezbollah" and waving their flags.

Imagine! People siding with a grassroots political organization of the same nationality and religion as them over the foreign infidels! Shocking!

Our countries go to war and lose the least amount of soldiers than in any other war in history and we're running around like ninnies demanding that we lose.

So wait: since we've lost so few troops, that's a sign that the Muslims are gonna KILL US ALL!!??? You're confusion is confusing. Of course it could be that the number of troops lost is irrelevant because the political battle is the important one. And-oops-we're losing that one.

You tell me who the strong horse is in this war? Not us - not with our newfound societal self loathing.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that the line between people expressing the sentiment above and the people they say are the enemy is very thin. Both groups hate western liberal democracy and pluralism. Both seem to long for a strong, authoritarian hand to guide them and keep them safe. And neither seems to have much faith that our overwhelming superiority in every category that matters is enough. In short: both hate our societies ad want them destroyed. What's most terrifying is that its the one's who claim to be defending our society who have the best chance of destroying it.

Can you imagine if in the 1940's the UN was in REAL TIME publishing troop movements of the Allies? or a Press Corps eager to point our the need to "stand down" and "negotiate" with Hitler?

Where is the Hitler of today? I know you people see Hitler everywhere you go (that guy who stole your parking spot? Hitler. Dude who's car alarm keeps going off at 3 a.m.? Hitler. Girl who refuses your phone number? Totally GirlHitler.), but really: what entity today is analgous to Hitler's Reich in terms of capability?

NATIONS go to war, not SOLDIERS.

Which is why we declared war on a concept, right?

[JerrySeinfeld]

Black dog: Iran wants Nuclear power for ENERGY?

This coming froma country that's practically FLOATING on oil.

I think you're confused about my other points because you seemed to ramble a bit and seemed a bit frustrated.

Let me clear i up:

The difference between us and them (radical Islamists) is that they have the will of the people - people ready and willing to blow up their own childeren for a cause (SEE "The Mother Of The Cause" Hamas MP who used to have 6 childeren but sent 3 into Jewish pizzarias to self-detonate).

On the other hand the Michael Moores of the world get so squeemish over a few body bags (it IS a war Mikey) and want to run home to mommy.

That's the point - Bin Laden was correct: In a long war, the Strong Horse wins, and THEY are the strong horse: the will of the people.

[Black Dog]

Black dog: Iran wants Nuclear power for ENERGY?

This coming froma country that's practically FLOATING on oil.

Dude: even Alberta buys oil off the market (heck: there's been talk of building nuclear reactors up in Fort Mac to power the oil sector). Point is, you're very choosy about which public pronouncements you believe, invariably landing on the "OMIGODOMIGOD WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!11!!" side.

I think you're confused about my other points because you seemed to ramble a bit and seemed a bit frustrated.

Frustrated? Nah. Bemused at best.

The difference between us and them (radical Islamists) is that they have the will of the people - people ready and willing to blow up their own childeren for a cause (SEE "The Mother Of The Cause" Hamas MP who used to have 6 childeren but sent 3 into Jewish pizzarias to self-detonate).

On the other hand the Michael Moores of the world get so squeemish over a few body bags (it IS a war Mikey) and want to run home to mommy.

That's the point - Bin Laden was correct: In a long war, the Strong Horse wins, and THEY are the strong horse: the will of the people.

Which at the end of the day, amounts to nothing. "They" can send an endless stream of bombers into every Pizza Pizza they can find and it stil won't tip the balance their way. You know why they use suicide bombers, hide behind civilians, etc? Because their side is weak. They can't take territory and hold it. They can't go toe to toe with even the weakest western military. They just don't have the capacity to hurt us militarily, let alone change our socila fabric to their liking. As for this "will of the people" bullshit, what difference does that make (even if it were true: in case you haven't noticed, Islam is not the most internally harmonious religion)?

Face it: neither the Muslim world, nor certainly the Arab world, poses an existential threat to the west. To paraphrase Denis Leary, they can have a big jihad parade down the middle of Mecca and it won't make a lick of difference because we have the bomb.

[lost&outofcontrol]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

The West acts like a mob boss when his house get robbed. He starts "whacking" people without ever asking himself how all that nice stuff got into his house in the first place.

[Wilber]

Dude: even Alberta buys oil off the market (heck: there's been talk of building nuclear reactors up in Fort Mac to power the oil sector). Point is, you're very choosy about which public pronouncements you believe, invariably landing on the "OMIGODOMIGOD WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!11!!" side.

Yes, Iran needs nuclear energy to provide electrical power. Right, the fourth largest producer of oil in the world has a pressing need for nuclear power to provide electricity. Right. B freekin S, they want the bomb. I would have a lot more respect for them if they just cut the crap and were honest about it.

[KrustyKidd]

Yes, Iran needs nuclear energy to provide electrical power. Right, the fourth largest producer of oil in the world has a pressing need for nuclear power to provide electricity. Right. B freekin S, they want the bomb. I would have a lot more respect for them if they just cut the crap and were honest about it.

Iran is a country deep in trouble from within. They don't need the bomb nor nuclear power but they do have a problem making their revolution work. See, the big payoff has never come and the modern world is encroaching on them via the internet and an ever increasinly shrinking world. Here, the people know that the revolution seems to have left them behind and, in a bid to make it pay off (or seem to) the leaders need to become a modern power with all the bells and whistles.

What that spells is a desirre to have nuclear energy which can then be held up as a coup to the people to show they are truely not backwards and, while they have no realistic expectation of aquiring a nuclear arsenal, they must try nonetheless. It's a bag of tricks that gets them on the same footing as the great powers and the US in talks and such. A little sabre rattling and the Euros come to the talks. Not many countries have that power but, Iran is one of them.

In reality, they know they will get nuclear energy but unlikely to ever have a bomb (as Israel or any number of countries will simply take action to ensure this won't happen) but, what they will get is respect and concessions.

[Wilber]

In reality, they know they will get nuclear energy but unlikely to ever have a bomb (as Israel or any number of countries will simply take action to ensure this won't happen) but, what they will get is respect and concessions.

Nice theory but I don't believe it. What action can other countries take when they need Iran's oil so much. Pakistan developed nuclear weapons and Iran is just as capable and far wealthier. They haven't made Saddam's mistake of putting all their eggs in one basket where the Israelis can take it out with a few well aimed bombs. I agree that they will play if for everything they can get in the meantime but I have no doubt this regime does ultimately want nukes. My guess it they will get them despite world opinion.

[KrustyKidd]

What action can other countries take when they need Iran's oil so much.

Give up everything for a commodity they can get from any other place in the region? Get real. If Iran stops selling then they go down so in reality, they need to sell as much if not more than others need to buy. The oil argument is crap as the Saudis learned in the seventies, it nearly destroyed them.

[Wilber]

What action can other countries take when they need Iran's oil so much.

Give up everything for a commodity they can get from any other place in the region? Get real. If Iran stops selling then they go down so in reality, they need to sell as much if not more than others need to buy. The oil argument is crap as the Saudis learned in the seventies, it nearly destroyed them.

Except that the spread between world supply and demand wasn't nearly so tight in the seventies. Alaska came on line and it is now declining. Demand from traditional markets has increased substantially since then. Chinese and Indian demand wasn't even part of the equation back in the seventies. Oil producing countries don't have the dependence on North America that they used to and would have no problems taking Euros or Yen for their oil. Even China has it's currency pegged to the US dollar.

[KrustyKidd]

Except that the spread between world supply and demand wasn't nearly so tight in the seventies. Alaska came on line and it is now declining. Demand from traditional markets has increased substantially since then. Chinese and Indian demand wasn't even part of the equation back in the seventies. Oil producing countries don't have the dependence on North America that they used to and would have no problems taking Euros or Yen for their oil. Even China has it's currency pegged to the US dollar.

And Israel is dependent on Iranian oil as well and therefore will allow them to have a nuclear bomb. Got it.

So, if Iran stops selling oil and goes into a financial meltdown while the rest of the world is undergoing uncomfortable prices, they will be showing us eh?

[Wilber]

Except that the spread between world supply and demand wasn't nearly so tight in the seventies. Alaska came on line and it is now declining. Demand from traditional markets has increased substantially since then. Chinese and Indian demand wasn't even part of the equation back in the seventies. Oil producing countries don't have the dependence on North America that they used to and would have no problems taking Euros or Yen for their oil. Even China has it's currency pegged to the US dollar.

And Israel is dependent on Iranian oil as well and therefore will allow them to have a nuclear bomb. Got it.

So, if Iran stops selling oil and goes into a financial meltdown while the rest of the world is undergoing uncomfortable prices, they will be showing us eh?

Iran can pick and choose who it stops selling oil to, it doesn't just have to shut down. This is not the seventies. The demand is greater, supply is tighter and there aren't the easily exploitable reserves out there that there were in the seventies.

[KrustyKidd]

Iran can pick and choose who it stops selling oil to, it doesn't just have to shut down. This is not the seventies. The demand is greater, supply is tighter and there aren't the easily exploitable reserves out there that there were in the seventies.

Cool. Dismantling OPEC one chip at a time. See, now cheaper prices are comming! Soon as we see Iran needs a hand here, we give them one and .... cheap oil comes our way at the expense of all the other members.

The EU can start by laying off the UN to enact sanctions. BTW, how is that one going?