Europe's Security and Geopolitics?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: AE Geopolitical Institute
Forum Discription: Implications of Strategic Policies.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=25267
Printed Date: 20-Apr-2024 at 00:37
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Europe's Security and Geopolitics?
Posted By: Kevin
Subject: Europe's Security and Geopolitics?
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2008 at 05:48
|
With the EU expanding along with maybe becoming a more united entity and perhaps with a united Europe playing a much larger role in World Affairs some years from now does anyone think that the threats to the EU's security and stability will increase and where will that threat come from the main threat portrayed among many in Western Society Extremist Islam or from a more resurgent Russia or from something else such as internal demographics and possible future general social instability throughout Europe. Discuss |
Replies:
Posted By: Bankotsu
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2008 at 06:03
|
I think EU's role in the world is limited since there is still NATO as a factor influencing decisions and policy. There are also tens of thousands of U.S troops in europe. So, the independent role of EU is doubtful. Zbigniew Brzezinski's view of USA policy towards Europe: Europe is America's essential geopolitical bridgehead in Eurasia. America's stake in democratic Europe is enormous. Unlike America's links with Japan, NATO entrenches American political influence and military power on the Eurasian mainland. With the allied European nations still highly dependent on U.S. protection, any expansion of Europe's political scope is automatically an expansion of U.S. influence. Conversely, the United States' ability to project influence and power in Eurasia relies on close transatlantic ties. A wider Europe and an enlarged NATO will serve the short-term and longer-term interests of U.S. policy. A larger Europe will expand the range of American influence without simultaneously creating a Europe so politically integrated that it could challenge the United States on matters of geopolitical importance, particularly in the Middle East. A politically defined Europe is also essential to Russia's assimilation into a system of global cooperation. America cannot create a more united Europe on its own -- that is a task for the Europeans, especially the French and the Germans. But America can obstruct the emergence of a more united Europe, and that could prove calamitous for Eurasian stability and America's interests. Unless Europe becomes more united, it is likely to become more disunited again. Washington must work closely with Germany and France in building a Europe that is politically viable, remains linked to the United States, and widens the scope of the democratic international system. Choosing between France and Germany is not the issue. Without both these nations, there will be no Europe, and without Europe there will never be a cooperative trans-Eurasian system. In practical terms, all this will eventually require America's accommodation to a shared leadership in NATO, greater acceptance of France's concerns over a European role in Africa and the Middle East, and continued support for the European Union's eastward expansion even as the EU becomes politically and economically more assertive. A transatlantic free trade agreement, already advocated by a number of Western leaders, could mitigate the risk of a growing economic rivalry between the EU and the United States. The EU's progressive success in burying centuries-old European antagonisms would be well worth a gradual diminution in America's role as Europe's arbitrator. Enlargement of NATO and the EU would also reinvigorate Europe's waning sense of a larger vocation while consolidating, to the benefit of both America and Europe, the democratic gains won through the successful end of the Cold War. At stake in this effort is nothing less than America's long-range relationship with Europe. A new Europe is still taking shape, and if that Europe is to remain part of the "Euro-Atlantic" space, the expansion of NATO is essential. Accordingly, NATO and EU enlargement should move forward in deliberate stages. Assuming a sustained American and Western European commitment, here is a speculative but realistic timetable for these stages: By 1999, the first three Central European members will have been admitted into NATO, although their inclusion in the EU will probably not take place before 2002 or 2003; by 2003, the EU is likely to have initiated accession talks with all three Baltic republics, and NATO will likewise have moved forward on their membership as well as that of Romania and Bulgaria, with their accession likely to be completed before 2005; between 2005 and 2010, Ukraine, provided it has made significant domestic reforms and has become identified as a Central European country, should also be ready for initial negotiations with the EU and NATO. Failure to widen NATO, now that the commitment has been made, would shatter the concept of an expanding Europe and demoralize the Central Europeans. Worse, it could reignite dormant Russian political aspirations in Central Europe. Moreover, it is far from evident that the Russian political elite shares the European desire for a strong American political and military presence in Europe. Accordingly, while fostering a cooperative relationship with Russia is desirable, it is important for America to send a clear message about its global priorities. If a choice must be made between a larger Europe-Atlantic system and a better relationship with Russia, the former must rank higher. http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/9709brzezinski.html - http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/9709brzezinski.html |
Posted By: Kevin
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2008 at 17:11
However with this to quote something along the lines of what a French political analyst said which was that "American success is European success". I think in many ways if not most ways this is true and I think a more united Europe would be very close in terms of geopolitical interests with the United States. However this is not to say that they would have disagreements especially on issues like economics and business ties in many areas of the World and on environmental issues as well. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2008 at 18:22
|
militarily I feel there will be no threatsto the EU based on a quote i was read, "if there is a WW3 WW4 willbe faught with stiks and stones" a word war in a modrn era would just have to drastic a consequences
economically I feel there may threats from China only gentlmens agrement limits there trade to here to 11% the special frendiship with US should stop any issues there I hope
 |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 29-Aug-2008 at 02:31
|
Europe has known and understood hegemony since the early 16th century. In the last century, the hegemon was either Germany, or Russia in its Soviet disguise. The US is a hegemon, but rarely acknowledged as such.
The unadvertised strategy of the US has been to provide cover for western Europe, and since the 1990s, for eastern Europe as well. This cover (in the form of NATO), coming after the recovery plans post WW II, was as much to attain control over Germany as it was to keep Russia from expanding her influence westward.
It had little to do with altruistic intent. It did have to do with prevention of another hegemony on the Eurasian land mass. Such a hegemonic entity would be against the interests of the US. The domination of markets and control of resources would be a serious challenge to US global position.
The US has no interest in Europe consolidating. There have been some views (French) that a "Big Europe" extending from Portugal to Moscow would be able to counter US global hegemony. Give it 100 years, but I can't see that now. The only Euros who seem to see that as advantageous are intellectuals....often the most unrealistic of people.
Such a Big Europe would be dominated by Russia. France would become like Ukraine; Germany would become like some other vassal, and all the others would be little Georgias. The geographic realitiy of such a hegemony would lead to enough tensions over resources and markets that another general and probably catastrophic war would be more likely.
It is far better and cheaper to isolate Russia from all her former European enemies and satrapies, to promote the decomposition of nascent European unification (unlikely anyway) and to present the tableau of Russian misbehavior to as many as possible.....Kosovo/Georgia/Chechenya.....threats of attack against east Europe, etc.
All this goes far beyond - to assessments of the zones of conflict around the rim of the Eurasian landmass and whether they are "soft" and malleable like the general Arab world, or "hard" and must be dealt with like India and China. Europe is a soft zone, and has been since 1945.
As far as European security, the European states are now a Balkan peninsula that has been controlled by outside power since the 1940s. Security has come at the price of dismantling the imperial resource bases that gave some of them the added strength/potential to regain the aggressive postures of the years pre-1945, and acquiesence to NATO (US) protection against Russia and German revanchism.
As it stands, European geopolitics is an extension of US geoplitical interests. Ask Poland and Estonia and Ukraine who they would prefer. Unfortunately, geographically, a resurgent and confident Russia "is they daddy."
|
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2008 at 01:53
|
Who thinks Europe, as a whole, has much latitude in its collective approach to foreign affairs and to its security concerns? Let's discuss this. I submit that European powers misinterpreted their influence in world affairs, after the years 1914-45, in Indochina, Indonesia, in North Africa, and had to surrender any influence at all after the Suez debacle in 1956. The only European powers of any consequence, France and the UK, were told what they could do in foreign affairs, and how far they could go, by the United States. This situation was due to a confluence of interests of the US and the USSR. Has this changed since 1956? Only to the extent that western Europe's lines of supply and commerce are dependant on US naval power, and that the rest of developed Europe is substantially hostage to energy resources purchased from Russia. In sum, does Europe now have less latitude to act absent attention to American or Russian interests than 50 years ago, or has the situation remained much the same?
Why would either the US or Russia acquiesce in actions of European states (or Europe collectively) that did not coincide with their interests?
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2008 at 05:17
|
Europe is dependent on the US ultimatly, with the exception of France and UK. Europe's defence is based on the assumption that US will defend it. Europe dose have significant latitude to act; for example Iraq war, when it was split in Rumsfeld's immortal words, between Old Europe and New Europe plus the UK, however it can't go against US interests beyond a certain limit. So friendship with Russia is only up to the extent that the US vital interests are not threatened.
------------- |
Posted By: xristar
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2008 at 05:55
From whom? ------------- 
Defeat allows no explanation Victory needs none. It insults the dead when you treat life carelessly. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2008 at 08:46
|
From any external threat, Russia for one. ------------- |
Posted By: xristar
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2008 at 11:39
|
I don't think Europe fears Russia at all. After all, european countries are dismantling their conventional armiesand building smaller ones, with clear aggressive orientation. Apart from this, the big european countries can easily match russia's capabilities. Unless of course you speak of nuclear threat, which I don't think is anyhow propable. I think Europe's reliance from the US has not to do with Europe's defence, but rather with offense. European countries cannot launch operations overseas without the US helping. -------------
Defeat allows no explanation Victory needs none. It insults the dead when you treat life carelessly. |
Posted By: Dacian
Date Posted: 21-Mar-2009 at 20:26
|
it might be safe to say that maybe after centuries of inner fighting the european heads found out it is more advantageous to try keeping the stuff togheter than always trying to break it appart even more so for now (likely with time will change as selfconfidence in the european power grows and us power will decay) europe is focusing on economy, research and wellfare which is not at all bad for it's inhabitants pretty much everyone expects the new top dog to be china and the EU doesnt seem to want to interfere with the china-us economic powerstruggle (its complicated enough as it is by the way the china and us economies are interlinked) i guess for now is watch and welfare for europe (watch everybody else russia included). not to mention europe is busy with itself , trying to bring the eastern block closer to the western part which is not an easy task...one cannot wipe 50 years of communism that easy) still it is some place left for world wide diplomacy here and there to show a new european image focused on helping peace and sorts...which is quite true for now...but without a doubt things will change with time...as with any "empire" it will be growth peak and collapse |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 21-Mar-2009 at 21:44
|
This popping up again made me reread over the thread. I don't see why Russia is seen as such an important factor any more. It is nothing like the giant it was.
Currently the Russian population is about 140 million - half the size of the US, and half the size of the Soviet Union - while the EU's population is close to 500 million. I'm not a great fan of GDP as a measure, but again currently the EU GDP is something more than ten times the Russian GDP - $18 trillion vs $1.75 trillion or thereabouts.
And its current economic situation shows how vulnerable it is to fluctuations in the oil price. ------------- |
Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 21-Mar-2009 at 22:05
I think it might be a built in psychology of many major European powers to fear Russia's historical past. I'm not saying that modern Russia is to be ultimately feared as the main threat, but we are not really that far removed enough from the past for peoples memories too fade to nothingness, as if the events of the twentieth century never happened! As a whole, Europe has nothing too fear from Russia. Independently, they might have everything too fear and not only from Russia, but also from past European expansionist powers!
Economics aside, just how united is Europe really? I'm not asking this out of any gleeful hostility to the EU project, but i do have my suspicions? If i may be allowed my two cents of druthers... i'd rather see the EU be a bit more united, but a lot less centralized than it is currently, than for it to go back to the way it was per-20th century. ------------- |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 02-Apr-2009 at 17:26
Russia has natural resources. ------------- |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 02-Apr-2009 at 23:08
That might make Russia more of a Chinese target down the road. The Chinese are woefully deficient in many natural resources that are needed to support any ongoing economic development that China can sustain. Russia is vulnerable to fluctuating oil prices, as is any one-commodity political economy. The Chinese are vulnerable to ANY drop in economic demand because their industrial base is so immature. They manufacture a lot of low quality, low cost goods that are more dependent on mass, low-income consumer demand.
If, as the global economic situation evolves, China becomes either a) more sophisticated in her manufacturing base, or b) called upon to satisfy many developing low cost markets (assuming the global economy achieves some equilibrium) with industrial production, the closeness of Russia's natural resources may be too inviting to ignore, or too expensive to bargain for. The possibility of Sino-Russian conflict is likely to be undeniable.
If that occurs, Iran might make her bid for dominance in the Caspian region in order to control the hydrocarbon resources that a) she cannot control in the Persian Gulf, and b) she needs in order to support Iranian pretensions to being a credible regional power.
In future, the key to the domination of central and north Asia is going to revolve around the interests of, and conflicts between Russia, Iran and China.
As, long term, birth rate wins, China wins; Russia loses, and Iran picks up what central Asian scraps she can. The Russians still have twice the population of Iran, and will not abandon the Caspian without a struggle. The world remains economically dependent on oil - the only resource either Russia or Iran, currently, have going for them.
In sum, your resources (Russia) don't mean that much when your competing neighbor (China) has ten times your population. Eventually, your competing neighbor probably is going to go after your resources.
|
Posted By: xristar
Date Posted: 02-Apr-2009 at 23:55
|
That's consistent with the fact that Russia keeps her best conventional forces (I'm having the T-90 and BMP-3 in mind) in the Far East, rather than Europe. apparently, Russians have a reason to thinks there's where the hotter front is going to be.
-------------
Defeat allows no explanation Victory needs none. It insults the dead when you treat life carelessly. |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2009 at 01:07
I absolutely agree. It is no longer 1914 or 1941.
Russia's recent bluster in the West (the Baltic states; Poland) is only by way of emphasizing that, to the central European peoples, Russia wants to be seen as a major power; an arbiter of European affairs as she was under the USSR. Russia has little to fear from the West - France and Germany are not the powers they were 100 years ago; the European status quo is guaranteed by US presence on the continent and by US leadership of NATO. The interests and policies of the USA have been directed toward Asia, not Europe, for almost the last 50 years.
The US has nothing to gain by any threat to Russia. The overtures of NATO to states of Russia's "near abroad" have been primarily to gain bargaining chips for future issues of negotiation over interests that impact both "sides."
Russia's most likely adversaries are in Asia - China and Iran. In the case of the former, any strategic determination will likely be defined by a balance of nuclear forces. In the case of Iran, it may be more conventional, perhaps under nuclear umbrellas.
Recently, I have become intrigued by the idea that Iran has been using Russian support to develop nuclear capability, with the US as a surreptitious threat to Iran, when Iran knows that, long term, their far more dangerous adversary is...Russia.
|
Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2009 at 01:16
|
Pikeshot, You have piqued my curiosity. What in the world are doing being a stockbroker (A highly intelligent position itself), when your grasp of geopolitics far surpass even most of our currently elected government officials? I kid you not! |
Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2009 at 07:39
|
No offense, but i highly doubt the capacity, nowadays, of the US to defend an entire continent from any external threat, since they cannot win a war in rocky Afghanistan and had to deploy an entire army in a freaking desert (Iraq that is ) in order to keep the order........ Plus, Russia is not a threat to Europe. Russia needs the European market and European cash. Only an imbecile would do otherwise. Just look how many Russians do their business or live in the UK.... ------------- "There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. " --- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996) |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2009 at 15:23
Well, thanks for the compliment, I guess. It is much too late in life for this older guy to change course, and I didn't have the academic credentials to get involved in national security or teaching. My days in the navy were as a line officer, and later in administration, so I don't have any professional intel background. I wasn't one of "the annointed."
 In those days, all the strategists thought about was the USSR. That was perhaps why Condi Rice, as an old Cold Warrior, was clueless in the 2000s.
In order for anyone to have a broader understanding of geopolitics with numerous other players, you had to read up on the 19th century, and on WW II - and that became very unfashionable, at least in the US. We tend here to think nothing happened before yesterday. So, Cold War geopols became like simulacra of one another.
George Kennan's policy recs and Spykman's geographic thinking had to be ossified in order to sell them to the mass of voters as "immutable truths." Kennan was so disappointed in what happened to his policy positions he quit the State Dept. Whatever...I know I never would have fit in anyway.
The financial biz has been good to me (even if half my clients don't do what I recommend - they still buy high and sell low too often).
|
Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2009 at 19:09
I think you might be missing the point behind the alliance or any other? It's not and never has been the sole intention of the US in being the sole guarantor of the European continental security. The emphasis has always been on partnership in security with other European states by a treaty of collective security synonymous within the structure of Nato. The campaigns in Afghanistan have nothing what-so-ever to do with US military capabilities and more to do with the constantly evolving strategy, squabbling between allies and starting from scratch with a multitude of countries in trying too help the peoples in that country put together a functioning government that will work best for them and no other country! Iraq is turning out to be quite different. With the US it seems to have blundered it's way through when it had a somewhat semi-state that was barely functioned to start with. Opting to go with disbanding everything ba'athist related and starting over again from scratch. Especially when it seems more apparent that the US didn't need to go that route. Time will tell if Obama can form a bit more of a coherent strategy which seems to have been lacking in the waning days of the Bush administration? |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 04-Apr-2009 at 01:03
|
The campaigns in Afghanistan never had much to do with anything other than as a visible response to 9/11. What went wrong there was the usual misreading of reality by US policymakers. There was hardly any real intention to "nation build" or put Afghanistan on some road to modernity. Afghanistan means nothing to the US; it means very, very much to Pakistan. It could mean much to Iran in future.
The Afghan Islamists, who seem so powerful to the Western media, will surely make a comeback, but that will not be until the US is gone. That will happen as the chasm between the two cultures is far too great. Once they are back, the CIA can return to running US policy in Afghanistan. The Pakistanis can deal with their cultural bretheren on an official level.
Really, what does it matter who is "in power" in Afghanistan? The Taliban will have to share it with all the local warlords and the tribal interests. The only support the Taliban can ever count on is that of Pakistan (one major reason all the expatriot Islamist factions are attempting to influence internal Pakistani politics by assassinating politicians and blowing up Mosques).
So...the US inevitably leaves; the Pakis give support to the Taliban - or to whomever - so they are controllable, and no more Russian/American forces are on their flank while Pakistan and India continue to face one another down for the rest of time.
Now, to the important war - the one that has placed US military forces in Mesopotamia. As the world is running out of oil, there was only one reason why that adventure was launched. It was to make sure no one else got the access to that oil. Well, "mission accomplished." Anyone who thinks US forces will be out of Iraq in the next 50 years, raise your hand.
Iraq is not in any way able to defend itself.Whatever the media play (and those people are quite gullible), whatever the politics and the propaganda, the Iraq war has achieved an immensely important long term goal by placing US power in the heart of Mesopotamia, and probably for as long as any of us is alive. Whatever the domestic bluster; whatever the protestations of Iraqis, they don't have a choice unless they want to face Iran alone.
The outline of all this seems to date from after the 1991 Gulf War. An aquaintance of mine who is close to retirement from the State Dept. has said to me that US foreign policy has been run out of the Pentagon since the Gulf War. I would agree as our last four Secretaries of State have been (or have been treated like) trick ponies.
I am not justifying any of this. It is as it is....reason of state; Realpolitik, etc. Call it anything you want. It doesn't matter what you call it.
|
Posted By: xristar
Date Posted: 04-Apr-2009 at 01:42
|
pikeshot, I really enjoy your very intersting posts, but my impression is that you ignore a very important factor: Turkey. You put so much emphasis on Iran, but you forget Turkey, a power admitedlly greater than Iran (sinilar -if not greater- population, better industry, similar nuclear ambitions, greater interests inside Iraq)
-------------
Defeat allows no explanation Victory needs none. It insults the dead when you treat life carelessly. |
Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 04-Apr-2009 at 08:30
Rather a cowboy in a horse, shooting here and there, and trying to drug to his shooting the old cowboys of the city (NATO), which incidentally are now merchants.....
It acts like one...
........
It has to do with military capabilities. The US were stretched in 2 small (from a "continental" perspective) fronts , against ill-equipped and ill-trained enemies. In order to prevail it had to deploy a massive force in Iraq, which is , let's face it, nothing more than a flat desert country with 2 rivers.... While, at the same time, it cannot prevail in rocky Afghanistan. I think it was Barack Obama who declared of sending more troops there.....And do not be mistaken. We are not talking about forces/troops with a rifle and a pair of boots. We are talking about a massive military machine, a machine which, theoretically, can crash any enemy. You do not have to be an expert to understand it. Look at the figures: how many dollars were spent in order to support the historical joke called "the war against terrorism"?? It cannot crash a bunch of bearded fanatics in a country who has not seen any kind of "Western civilization" in the past, what, 30-40 years???? Of course, Afghanistan is unique in terms of geomorphology. Everybody recognizes that. But it's not as if the US forces are a gang of "rednecks" coming from their "shitholes" in Aiowa....
Can you tell me how the British could hold half of the country under some control with only 1 base back in WWII??? I honestly believe that the US capabilities are not as they are portrayed. It just couldn't attack Iran, while being in 2 neighbouring countries, even if it wanted to. ( Forgive me for me being so blatant, it's that i woke up from a wild night....) ------------- "There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. " --- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996) |
Posted By: xristar
Date Posted: 04-Apr-2009 at 09:50
|
Military efficiency has nothing to do with anti-guerilla wars. Anti-querilla wars are won on the political level (by winning the people's hearts)and not on the battlefield. THat's why the Soviets and now the NATO couldn't win in Afghanistan. -------------
Defeat allows no explanation Victory needs none. It insults the dead when you treat life carelessly. |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 04-Apr-2009 at 12:08
|
I'm astonished and somewhat saddened that no-one comments on the evil the Taliban represents. ------------- |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 04-Apr-2009 at 14:21
Beheading people and whipping children in the street betrays the primitive, violent nature of the culture in which such behavior can pass for "order" and "morality."
However, that is not our problem as it is unlikely to change. You need to overlook such realities in order to address more vital interests. Unpleasant, but a fact.
|
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 04-Apr-2009 at 15:48
I am hardly an expert on Turkey, but if there is one NATO member that is likely to leave the alliance at some time I imagine it would be Turkey. However, the Turks are realists above all, and they know the historic adversary has been the "Rus." A NATO umbrella with the US still involved does retain utility for Turkey. The Turks cannot go it alone, and why would they if they don't have to? Why give up military assistance paid for by US taxes?
By retaining a connection to NATO (however tenuous it may become), Turkey has a reserve of military and political support that might be used in case of a crisis. The Turks are no less vulnerable to the declining oil available to the global economy than anyone else without their own sources of it, and Turkey could also be a player in central Asia - on whose "side" will depend on their reading of vital interests.
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 04-Apr-2009 at 16:07
That people believe there are more vital interests is what saddens me. ------------- |
Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 04-Apr-2009 at 23:34
Fair enough. However, i would like to point out that atleast since the Eisenhower administration there had been a continuous effort on the part of the US to get allied European states too spend more on their defense, thereby decreasing the burden on the US. The results had always seemed to be very lackluster at best!
Opps...  I guess many posters here might not care for it, but as far as i am concerned, Nato in my eyes remains valid enough for atleast another 30-40 years. After that, then maybe...who knows?-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you wish to... we can discuss this further in a different thread i had started about a week or two ago: http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=26771 - http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=26771 I'll post my response to you there in just a little while.
It's quite alright, i do understand. I'm not offended in the least. Just take care of any hangover you might have and i'll talk with you later. |
Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 04-Apr-2009 at 23:40
I thought it was "politically incorrect" to do so?  |
Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 05-Apr-2009 at 19:35
Their "evil" is way too small compared to others..... ------------- "There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. " --- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996) |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 06-Apr-2009 at 17:52
|
It's a small country, yes, but the evil is the same - the subordination of humanity to ideological/religious dogmatism.
As a moral stance it is worse than the sheer kleptocracy of regimes like Mugabe's or Hussein's.
If there are only a few cases of bubonic plague in a country, do you do nothing about it because the country is small? ------------- |
Posted By: xristar
Date Posted: 06-Apr-2009 at 20:24
|
Are you sure the Taliban are "evil"? I thought you were kidding actually. It seems to me that since NATO can't bring stability to Afghanistan, a Taliban regime may be better for the afghani people. Terrorism has obviously nothing to do with a nation, and Al Qaeda is but an international organization. -------------
Defeat allows no explanation Victory needs none. It insults the dead when you treat life carelessly. |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 06-Apr-2009 at 21:09
Absolutely.
It's been tried. It was on a level with Pol Pot in Cambodia, with the added danger that it threatened being infectious, unlike the Pol Pot regime.
I don't think I mentioned al-Qaeda, did I? I was talking about the Taliban, a much more serious matter. ------------- |