Conference in London to Revive the Caliphate

[bush_cheney2004]

I see that you are evading my original point - the Russians can and did create serious problems for some societies and helping those people made some sense. My point is Communism *never* represented a real threat to most western societies. The world did not come to an end when the US lost the war in Viet Nam. Similarly this Caliphate is not a real threat to any these countries either. They might make life pretty miserable for the people living in the region but that is a local problem.

This is patently false....western interests have far less to do with the simple-minded idea of invading armies and far more to do with economic hegemony, which requires stable and favorable political conditions. That's the real threat posed by the "commies", not Kirsk tank battles. It is also why Chavez and Castro are demonized.

Canada is not doing the US a favor by eschewing nukes....it is acting in self interest.

[Riverwind]

This is patently false....western interests have far less to do with the simple-minded idea of invading armies and far more to do with economic hegemony, which requires stable and favorable political conditions.

Communism was a bankrupt economic philosophy and collapsed because it was unable to keep up with the free market economies. Communism would have collapsed no matter what the West did because of this fundamental economic weakness. Now I agree that this weakness was not that obvious at the time but the lessons of communism teach us valuable lessons about how to deal with Islamists today.

Islamic societies will stagnate as long as they continue to obsess about religion and Isreal. Over time this weakness will ensure that their people will get poorer and poor and that their political and economic power in the world will decline. All we need to do is sit back and let them shoot themselves in the foot.

Edited August 6, 2007 by Riverwind

[ScottSA]

WTC attacks had little or no effect on the lives of people living outside of New York City. People were shocked but life continued on as before for the overwhelming majority of people.

Pretty much. That is what happened after 9/11 and that is exactly what would happen after any localized terrorist attack in the future.

Short term shifts in the stock market have no connection to the economy as a whole. There might be some minor economic disruptions but life will be more or less the same for the overwhelming majority of of people on the planet.

There's simply nothing to say to this sort of stupidity.

[Riverwind]

There's simply nothing to say to this sort of stupidity.

Of course not. You are a true believer who feels that the 'danger' of Islam is self evident and you are completely flumoxed when confronted with facts that show the opposite.

[ScottSA]

Of course not. You are a true believer who feels that the 'danger' of Islam is self evident and you are completely flumoxed when confronted with facts that show the opposite.

There's not a fact within 1000 yards of your argument; just a lot of hot air, glaring ignorance, and galloping naivete' That's the trouble.

[Riverwind]

There's not a fact within 1000 yards of your argument; just a lot of hot air, glaring ignorance, and galloping naivete' That's the trouble.

The USSR collapsed because its economic system could no longer provide the basic needs to its people. That is a fact. The USSR could not win a small regional war in Afganistan despite years of effort and 10,000 of casualities. It is rediculous to suggest that they would have been more successful invading Europe. Those two facts clearly indicate that the USSR was not really much of a threat.

I agree that is hindsight so lets fast forward to today. The Islamists have none of the advantages that the USSR had (i.e. a unified state and a good education system) yet they have all of the disadvantages (a repressive society that favours corruption). Yet you expect someone to belief that this Caliphate is a threat? You are the one who is making assertions without any facts.

I grew up a long time ago and have no desire to believe in monsters in the closet which is really what this 'Caliphate' is. It will never happen and if it did happen then it would likely be good for the world because the Islamic world needs to learn how to get along with their neighbors better and a Caliphate would at least teach them how to get along with each other.

Edited August 6, 2007 by Riverwind

[bush_cheney2004]

WTC attacks had little or no effect on the lives of people living outside of New York City. People were shocked but life continued on as before for the overwhelming majority of people.

This is patently false, and wholesale ignorance, starting with the very negative impact on US airlines and employees living outside New York City.

[B. Max]

I grew up a long time ago and have no desire to believe in monsters in the closet which is really what this 'Caliphate' is. It will never happen and if it did happen then it would likely be good for the world because the Islamic world needs to learn how to get along with their neighbors better and a Caliphate would at least teach them how to get along with each other.

That is ridiculous. Those who crack the whip for Caliphate have no intention of getting along with anyone. Their goal is Islamic conguest of the whole world, and if you don't like it, it's off with your head.

[Riverwind]

This is patently false, and wholesale ignorance, starting with the very negative impact on US airlines and employees living outside New York City.

Unexpected events can create short term shocks that affect a small number of people. That detail does not repudiate my claim that 9/11 had little or no impact on the lives of the overwhelming number of people in the world. Claiming that it did have a significant impact simply demonstrates your ignorance and desire to propagate myths that support your political ideology.

[Riverwind]

That is ridiculous. Those who crack the whip for Caliphate have no intention of getting along with anyone. Their goal is Islamic conguest of the whole world, and if you don't like it, it's off with your head.

Then we have nothing fear because anyone with that kind of attitude will never be more than a few zealots hiding in caves. If a Caliphate ever arises it will be nothing more than an EU for Muslim states.

[bush_cheney2004]

Unexpected events can create short term shocks that affect a small number of people. That detail does not repudiate my claim that 9/11 had little or no impact on the lives of the overwhelming number of people in the world. Claiming that it did have a significant impact simply demonstrates your ignorance and desire to propagate myths that support your political ideology.

Get real...you made a completely ignorant statement vis-a-vis the absence of impact outside of New York City. That's just silly.

There were short, intermediate, and lasting impacts on many people outside of New York City.

[Riverwind]

There were short, intermediate, and lasting impacts on many people outside of New York City.

You are missing the point. Islamic terrorism does _not_ represent a threat to our way life no matter how many high profile terrorist attacks that they launch. Israel could be wiped off the map and it would have little or no effect on the lives of the majority of people living in the world (short term shocks aside).

The Muslim world is hopelessly divided along ethnic lines - we see this in Iraq every day. It is simply absurd to suggest that these people could unite into any sort of Caliphate.

Edited August 7, 2007 by Riverwind

[bush_cheney2004]

You are missing the point. Islamic terrorism does _not_ represent a threat to our way life no matter how many high profile terrorist attacks that they launch. Israel could be wiped off the map and it would have little or no effect on the lives of the majority of people living in the world (short term shocks aside).

The Muslim world is hopelessly divided along ethnic lines - we see this in Iraq every day. It is simply absurd to suggest that these people could unite into any sort of Caliphate.

Oh, in other words, you were wrong, but I'm "missing the point"? Israel is a nation state with many immigrants to/from other nations. If short term shocks are so acceptable, why didn't you wipe Canada off the map instead?

[Riverwind]

Oh, in other words, you were wrong, but I'm "missing the point"? Israel is a nation state with many immigrants to/from other nations. If short term shocks are so acceptable, why didn't you wipe Canada off the map instead?

I was not wrong - you seem to think that ignoring the main point and nit picking about irrelevant details constitutes an argument. If you read what I said earlier you would see that I said Isreal being wiped would be a humanitarian disaster that we should work to prevent it just like we should try to prevent a genocide in Darfur or we should have done more in Rwanda. However, there is a huge difference between supporting a cause for humanitarian reasons and claiming a local problem is a threat to our way of life.

The Caliphate - if it emerged - would be a local problem.

Edited August 7, 2007 by Riverwind

[bush_cheney2004]

I was not wrong - you seem to think that ignoring the main point and nit picking about irrelevant details constitutes an argument. If you read what I said earlier you would see that I said Isreal being wiped would be a humanitarian disaster that we should work to prevent it just like we should try to prevent a genocide in Darfur or we should have done more in Rwanda. However, there is a huge difference between supporting a cause for humanitarian reasons and claiming a local problem is a threat to our way of life.

Nit picking your ridiculous claims about the impact of WTC attacks is child's play....challenging your assertions and pretzel logic analogies about communisim is even easier. Canada fought in wars over "local problems" throughout the 20th century, but passed on Rwanda.

Let's test your theory with more skin in the game.....wipe Canada off the map instead of Israel.

[Riverwind]

Nit picking your ridiculous claims about the impact of WTC attacks is child's play....challenging your assertions and pretzel logic analogies about communisim is even easier. Canada fought in wars over "local problems" throughout the 20th century, but passed on Rwanda.

Preztel logic? You are the one claiming that a Caliphate is a concern. What evidence do you have to back up that claim? I have made it clear that the lessons from Communism tell us that any such Caliphate would collapse under its own weight and would never be a threat to us.

[jefferiah]

Preztel logic? You are the one claiming that a Caliphate is a concern. What evidence do you have to back up that claim? I have made it clear that the lessons from Communism tell us that any such Caliphate would collapse under its own weight and would never be a threat to us.

Does it matter if it collapses later? How long did the Soviet Union last before it collapsed? Ask Anastasia if the fact that it fell made it any less of a threat?

[ScottSA]

This thread has degenerated into the worst example of head-in-the-sandism I've ever seen. Even the America-firsters weren't as utterly ignorant and blind as Riverwind is. There are really no grounds for argument here...people point out the obvious invalidity of his argument with numerous examples and he blithely dismisses them as "temporary." One might as well make the idiotic claim that Hiroshima only affected Hiroshimians or the sack of Rome only affected the city of Rome. Everything in Riverwind's vacuous mind apparently takes place in a vacuum.

Edited August 7, 2007 by ScottSA

[bush_cheney2004]

Preztel logic? You are the one claiming that a Caliphate is a concern. What evidence do you have to back up that claim? I have made it clear that the lessons from Communism tell us that any such Caliphate would collapse under its own weight and would never be a threat to us.

Wrong...I have not made any reference to a "Caliphate" in this thread. As always, I am firmly focused on geopolitics and economics as well as the things that would threaten same. I'm sure glad we didn't follow your advice when fascism was the issue.

Are you ready to sacrifice Canada to prove your point?

[Riverwind]

One might as well make the idiotic claim that Hiroshima only affected Hiroshimians or the sack of Rome only affected the city of Rome. Everything in Riverwind's vacuous mind apparently takes place in a vacuum.

My problem is with people who exploit fears and exaggerate threats. There are some threats which are real. There are times when it is necessary to take a stand even if your interests are not directly affected. However, it is also necessary to step back an recognize that not every threat is 'real' and not every humanitarian cause can be helped by military intervention. The fiascoes in Viet Nam and Iraq are two glaring examples of how politicians used fictitious threats to justify actions that hurt the interests of Americans in the long run.

What is worse is the people who created the mess in the first place continue to live in a state of denial and insist that their mistakes were 'necessary'. The Iraq invasion has made terrorist attacks much more likely - not less and many many experts (including some working for the US government) agree. Yet we still hear people claiming that the world is a 'safer place' without Saddam.

This thread about Caliphates is simply one more example of the fantasy world that war mongers live in and how they seem to be obsessed with creating threats that do not exist.

Edited August 7, 2007 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

Are you ready to sacrifice Canada to prove your point?

To what? There are no military threats facing Canada today.

[bush_cheney2004]

...What is worse is the people who created the mess in the first place continue to live in a state of denial and insist that their mistakes were 'necessary'. The Iraq invasion has made terrorist attacks much more likely - not less and many many experts (including some working for the US government) agree. Yet we still hear people claiming that the world is a 'safer place' without Saddam.

But you said we needn't fear any such terrorist attacks, as they are but a minor inconvenience. I believe you were willing to sacrifice Israel as an example of acceptable loss, but not Canada?

[bush_cheney2004]

To what? There are no military threats facing Canada today.

Using your benchmarks, there were never any threats to Canada. Yet Canadians went off to war. How do you reconcile that? Would the world find the loss of Canada equally acceptable as "wiping Israel off the map"? Using your logic, this would be so.

[Riverwind]

But you said we needn't fear any such terrorist attacks, as they are but a minor inconvenience. I believe you were willing to sacrifice Israel as an example of acceptable loss, but not Canada?

I never said that Israel would be an acceptable loss. I simply said that it is rediculous to claim that the loss of Israel would have a significant impact on the lives of the majority of people living outside of the region.

Using your benchmarks, there were never any threats to Canada. Yet Canadians went off to war. How do you reconcile that? Would the world find the loss of Canada equally acceptable as "wiping Israel off the map"? Using your logic, this would be so. ?

Read what I wrote. I never said that going to war is never justified. I said that certain people take a perverse pleasure out of exagerating threats and demanding actions that are not justified given the nature of the threat.

Terroism is a criminal problem and should be treated like one.

Edited August 7, 2007 by Riverwind

[bush_cheney2004]

I simply said that it is rediculous to claim that the loss of Israel would have a significant impact on the lives of the majority of people living outside of the region.

Then we can say the same for Canada, no? Wiping Canada off the map would not have a significant impact on the lives of the majority living "outside"? This is what you are advocating.

War is "perverse" by design. Trying to justify when war is appropriate is a fool's chore.