Bill willis 2007-09-09 07:30:25
CorrectionI mean of course “because” not “while” – Europe dithered.
Dirk bruere at 2007-09-09 07:30:29
The faults and terrorism do not lie purely on the Palestinian side.
The political party for the new millennium
Dirk bruere at 2007-09-09 07:30:30
They were waiting for their formal invitation from the Japanese.
The political party for the new millennium
Bill willis 2007-09-09 07:30:31
No, the signal for “right thinking” people ISTM is when an organization
*claims* responsibility for a terrorist act.
Indeed the US did not and I extend my criticism to the US for its
failure to act in the 1930s as I always have. However you must admit
that US dithering was at least mitigated by the fact that we were 4000
miles removed from Germany at a time when distance mattered and we were
not a major military power at the time either. Europe was very much out
of our remit in those days.
Matthew robb 2007-09-09 07:30:33
The policy of assassination may or may not be ‘terrorism’. But
demolishing people’s homes, torture, using tanks in civilian areas,
mass arrests. These are calculated to inspire terror.
As indeed are car bombs in civilian areas
Dapra 2007-09-09 15:17:30
Europe did not recognize, or more correctly, did not want to recognize
the mad man in the of middle of the last century. He had the most
powerful military, support of his people and the intention of taking
over the world.
There is only one person with comparable or a lot more military power in
the 21st century. He has clearly stated his intention to put the world
under his military control and he has the support of his people.
It seems Europe will dither again. The initial resistance turned into
appeasement. The death toll could be much higher, if anyone survives,
before the new ruler of the world to be disposed.
Bill willis 2007-09-09 15:17:32
LOL. Come on don’t be coy tell us who you mean and what do you want
Europe to do about this 21st century threat. Will Europe be willing to
double or triple its defense spending? Will EUrope even be willing to
suspend diplomatic relations with this new Hitler of the XXIst century? Bill
Matthew robb 2007-09-09 15:17:35
So you condemn them for the demolition of the family homes of bombers.
as this is done purely to terrorise. THe guilty party already being
Bill willis 2007-09-09 15:17:38
Then I condemn it.
Kel 2007-09-09 15:17:40
What new Hitler of the XXIst century is that then? And whilst spouting off
about our failure to tackle Hitler, the US managed to sit on the fence for
the best part of three years, so you’re in no position to lecture.
Dapra 2007-09-09 15:17:42
You already identified the “mad man”. Lets leave it to the six graders
to figure out the other one.
The power balance is a lot more skewed now than is was in W.W.II. In the
present, Europe or even the whole World do/did not have any military
option. So, ex post facto they just acquiesced to the military
aggression, the opening battle for the new world order and blessed it.
Doubling or tripling Europe’s defense spending would not make much
difference for a long time.
And of course you must know, no nations military is allowed to
challenge the supreme nations military superiority. One can only wonder
of the consequences if this is to happen. Would it result only in an
accelerated arms race or in a preemptive strike on Paris and Berlin? Who
knows where the Supreme Leader draws the line in order to keep
disobedient nations under control. (A short trial run of demonizing the
French worked extremely well on the public.)
I did not call the world ruler aspirant a new Hitler, though there are
lots of similarities. There are quite a few millions of people to be
killed before he earns this title. (A botched preemptive strike on NK
would be a good way to qualify.)
Europe can only have an effect at the margins. Suspending diplomatic
relations would not be a good idea. But appeasement and trampling on the
UN charter is not a good one either. dapra
Bill willis 2007-09-09 15:17:44
That’s my question too. The previous poster was being coy.
And whilst spouting off
This issue has been discussed in detail many times before and is
complex. If you are interested in my view on the subject you raise see
my reply to abelard today in “boring Saddam tapes” thread.
Bill willis 2007-09-09 15:17:46
Well it beats me. Though I have a fair idea who a very mixed up poster
might have in mind.
This answer is a cop out. Of course I don;t agree with your premise but
even putting that aside. If I did believe as you then I would be
advocating my country and others to take immediate action (at whatever
cost and sacrifice) to do *everything* possible to protect my way of
life from this impending menace. Yet you do not and more to the point
very few nations in the world and none of any major significance seems
overly concerned about this supposed menace at least not concerned
enough to prompt them to act in any meaningful way to counter the
menace. Therefore I regard this talk of menace as nothing more than meaningless hyperbole.
If Europe sees the US as a menace it could suspend its welfare state and
begin spending 5-10-20-30% of its GDP to protect itself from the
menace. Or will it wait for the menace to actualize itself in EUrope.
DOn’t be daft. Deep down Europe is quite happy that there is a United
States of America capable and willing to carry Europe’s dirty water for
them. More to the point Europe really hates itself more than America
for being in this secondary position but that is Europe’s problem not
Dapra 2007-09-09 15:17:50
I don’t see why you think so. You may point it out. I think I answered your questions.
Is not exposing the truth, of course as I see it, is a way of advocating
immediate actions? Do one has to scream to get attention? Do you
believe there are different audiences?
Well, that’s your opinion. The world has to be careful. No one wants to
step on the toes of an 800 lb gorilla with a nuclear arsenal to wipe out
any nation in the world.
Europe decided it’s better to spend money on their people than arms. Now
they may realize evil is not eliminated just because the USSR collapsed.
Did you have Europe on the sofa to come up with this analysis?