Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Eternal Wars Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: An objective view of the war on terrorism
Vanguard    4/7/2004 4:02:35 AM
I would like to try and "clean" the events we are assisting to these days and to give them a more realistic interpretation according to my view of the international relationships. I am of course ready to take any comments by you all. I would particularly appreciate criticism that could teach me something new. I think that historically, wars have always had more or less the same reasons to be fought: there is a faction that dictated the rules of the latest international order (by winning the previous war) and a faction that is subjected to this order and constantly measuring and judging it. The more the defeated of the latest war are satisfied by the international order imposed by the winners, the bigger is the probability that the defeated will not try to destabilize the order constituted by the latest war. That said i think that all the rest that we hear about why engaging in this so called "war on terrorism" is just crap. What we have here is a faction (a leading group of Muslims supported by a huge base of people kept in poor economic conditions and in a state of ignorance) that doesn't like the international order created by the powers who historically defeated and humiliated the so called Arab Nation (i.e the USA and Israel) I want to give you a practical example of what I mean. In 1945-46-47 we had occupation (stabilization ?) troops in our country (italy), mainly US and GB troops and their logistic tail of support included some civilians administrators. We certainly didn't ever think of burning some Americans or British in their car and then to hang them on a light pole! Apart from the occasional stab by the brother/father of the occasional raped italian woman, there have never been any major problems.....why that ? because the italians, the germans and even the japanese I would say, even if humiliated by the defeat felt that the new order was not opposed to their future plans. Apart from any political beliefs (me myself I'm not particularly pro USA) the Americans did their best to put the destroyed and defeated countries of the Axis on their feet again. Some ships full of crop and heading to Israel in 1948 were still being secretly diverted by the US President on the Sicilian shores to help the starving post war italian population. You could say that the arabs are fanatics and this doesn't work with them. I wuld answer: "wrong" could you call people who slammed their aircraft on the US carriers less fanatic that the people who slammed the two liners in the twin towers ?" I just think that the Japanese liked the new order of 1945 better than the "Arabs" like the order of 2000 which by the way is an evolution of the 1945 order. It's a fact that the "Arabs" lost all their wars to impose their will. They lost all their wars with Israel and many confrontations with the USA. They decided to fight their war in another way. You all have to put yourself in their shoes (Winston Churchill always recomended to put ourself in the enemy shoes to better understand him) and take a choice. Fight untill someone prevails or modify the current order to make it a little more acceptable for the challenging faction. It's my personal opinion, but just my personal one, that the USA are taking their chance on this so called "war on terror" to improve their position in some areas of the world (geostrategically and economically). For example I am pretty convinced that the invasion of Iraq has little to do with the war on terror. Certainly the USA being the leading power in the world have the possibility of making decisions like that if they believe they are good for the preservation of their dominating position (the number one goal of a dominating power by definition). The future will say if it was the right decision or not. I hope to have given a contribute to clarify the nature of the present international situation without aprioristic ideologic prejudices which are often seen even at the highest levels of national administrations. Vanguard
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT
bsl    RE:An objective view of the war on terrorism   4/7/2004 9:53:43 PM
"It's a fact that the "Arabs" lost all their wars to impose their will." You believe that history began less than three hundred years ago? Arab/Muslim history is about 1700 years old. Things went poorly for about the last 200-250. They went well before that, which is how something like half of what was the Christian world wound up Muslim. What we have - and, by "we", I mean the rest of the world - is a culture which is based on the idea that they are the only legitimate civilization in the world, whose proper role is to rule all others. There culture, their religion, the worldview, is not radically different from that of various branches of Christianity in earlier eras. But, the West evolved a radically different outlook on life, which led to a radically changed society, politics, economics, and the modern world as we know it. Islam stalled in that era before the Enlightnment, the Industrial Revolution, etc.. They never had the Wars of the Reformation and Counterreformation whose disasters led to Europe limiting the role of religion, separating out a distinct realm of faith and state, of private and public life, of limitations on the role of the state and society with respect to individuals which formed the basis on which the modern world evolved. The very notion of "limited government" is antithetical to the worldview of Islam. All government is a reflection of Allah's will and plan, and either conforms to it or defies it. And, so on. Germany and Japan evolved as they did, postWW2, in context of having the political cultures of the Nazis and Militarists totally discredited, by the simple fact of the utter defeat and horrific devastation of those countries. Islam has simply not suffered comparable damage at any point in the 20th century. To the contrary, in an era when their "actual" power relative to the West was never smaller, the postWW2 era has seen a West whose ethics have led it to a posture of less and less imposition on other states by force. Compare even the present state of affairs, in Iraq and Afghanistan, where there is not only no intention to reduce either country to a colony, but the occupiers look to withdraw their militaries as soon as possible, to the way Europe dealt with the Islamic world for a couple of hundred years, through the 1960s, when France finally abandoned Algeria. The Islamic cultures feel themselves undefeated, and see a Europe visibly recoiling from excercises in power, and seeming, to onlookers, more and more cowardly and failing. This doesn't tend to discourage enemies. It encourages them. That's the context in which the events of the last ten years occured. "the USA are taking their chance on this so called "war on terror" to improve their position in some areas of the world (geostrategically and economically). " You appear to be judging America by the standards of France. No wonder you reach absurd conclusions. For example I am pretty convinced that the invasion of Iraq has little to do with the war on terror." Wrong. As wrong as it's possible to be. This war is part and parcel of the war on terror. So is what is happening in Syria and Iran. And, North Korea. This seems wrong to you? Did you know what Libya was doing, and planning to do, before Khaddafy was frightened into trying to reach an accomodation with the west, recently? He's had quite a lot to say about various WMD programs. Did this come as a surprise to you?
 
Quote    Reply

Vanguard    RE:An objective view of the war on terrorism   4/8/2004 2:46:30 AM
"You believe that history began less than three hundred years ago?" - I was referring to the latest international order not to the middle ages one - "Islam stalled in that era before the Enlightnment the Industrial Revolution, etc.." - I completely agree with that. I would say that they failed in separating religion from politics but this is a fact that "we" like you said, have to deal to and put into the equation of the strategy towards these people - "Germany and Japan evolved as they did, postWW2, in context of having the political cultures of the Nazis and Militarists totally discredited, by the simple fact of the utter defeat and horrific devastation of those countries. Islam has simply not suffered comparable damage at any point in the 20th century." - debatable. The militaristic attitude of the German army survives more or less intact today too. It's the German appreciation of the situationa that changed a bit. Your assumption should be interpretated in the way that if you break the neck of your enemy for good you are done with him once for all. I say this a dangerous (for you) way of thinking at best. I can tell you that the axis powers accepted the 1945 "new order" on their own decision because it was an objective good "new order" for them. The 1918 "new order" for example wasn't that good as we saw in 1939. The case of Japan makes this concept even more evident because of the huge difference in culture with the winners. What it counts it's the post war conditions not the diversity. "The Islamic cultures feel themselves undefeated, and see a Europe visibly recoiling from excercises in power, and seeming, to onlookers, more and more cowardly and failing." - if they feel undefeated why are they fighting a was for the place they want this planet - "You appear to be judging America by the standards of France. No wonder you reach absurd conclusions" - I don't judge America strategy; I think the way of pursuing its strategy is debatable. There is nothing wrong for a global power to preserve its position - "Wrong. As wrong as it's possible to be. This war is part and parcel of the war on terror. So is what is happening in Syria and Iran. And, North Korea." - you could be right here. I just remain doubtful - "This seems wrong to you? Did you know what Libya was doing, and planning to do, before Khaddafy was frightened into trying to reach an accomodation with the west, recently?" What does make you so sure that the next regime in Iraq won't pursue a WMD poolicy as well ? Just because they are a friendly government ? But mr.Osama was your friend too and also mr.Saddam was. They were both your friends in the eighties. Doesn't that brings all back to the "realism" of the international realtions ? Why you want me to take this bubble of the morals and Ethics in the international system ? Do you really believe that the US government acts abroad with the puritan spirit that you have in your state courts ? The US are a great power, moreover they are the only one at the moment. They just have to find the right tatctics to enforce their strategy or this Iraq thing risks to end like in Somalia. - Vanguard
 
Quote    Reply

SGTObvious    Friends and enemies   4/8/2004 12:25:07 PM
"But mr.Osama was your friend too and also mr.Saddam was. They were both your friends in the eighties." A common error, widely beleived in Europe. In the USA, we understand that we have friends, enemies, and enemies that are currently fighting a common enemy. These are dealt with realistically, according to the needs of the situation. Stalin is an example. Churchill was a friend. Stalin was an enemy fighting a common enemy- and we knew it. There is a big difference. You Italians, Vanguard, should know this, because it was an Italian genius who wrote the book on how the game is played. If you are being attacked by a lion, but the lion steps on a viper, the viper is not your friend. .
 
Quote    Reply

On Watch    RE:An [objective view] of the war on terrorism   4/8/2004 1:49:01 PM
>>..."this Iraq thing risks to end like in Somalia." - Vanguard "Objective view" aye aye... Yes, and the moon is made of green cheese 'onegus'. Better check the 'order of battle'... On Watch P.S. your english is getting better though -- now you're almost believable as an Italian writing english. Soon you'll be able to pass yourself off as a Quebeki Canadian.
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a    RE:An [objective view] of the war on terrorism   4/8/2004 6:23:57 PM
Vanguard can't be Onegus. He's far too intelligent for that. Statements like "I see your point" and "I generally agree" are not to be found in our favorite reactionary Frenchman's vocabulary, and Vanguard has yet to call Americans stupid.
 
Quote    Reply

Rubicon    RE:An objective view of the war on terrorism Vanguard   4/8/2004 7:03:18 PM
People slamming planes into military installations/ships to defend their homeland can hardly be compared to people slamming planes full of civilians into civilian targets. Different type of fanaticism entirely. Furtermore, one was done for nationalistic fanatical reasons, the other one for the "religious" war ones. The two are as different as night and day. So I fail to see the drawing of the logical difference. Second, 1948 war of Independence of Israel can hardly be called a loss by Arabs, it's a draw at best considering the outcome. Furthermore loss or no loss, they have decided to fight their wars by attacking civilian targets long before the Independence war of 1948, 6 day war of 1967, and the war of 1973, long before Lebanon and Gulf Wars. Do you want thelist of individual attacks against purely civilian targets? Here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_Israel http://www.multied.com/Terrorhistory.html So, unless you are a troll I expect a coherent rebuttal.
 
Quote    Reply

Rubicon    RE:An objective view of the war on terrorism   4/8/2004 7:14:29 PM
"The US are a great power, moreover they are the only one at the moment. They just have to find the right tatctics to enforce their strategy or this Iraq thing risks to end like in Somalia." Uh, if you are referring to the Mogadishu incident, it was a UN operation. Furthermore, Italian and French peacekeepers were kind enough to forewarn the bad guys about an incoming US/UN strike. I recommend reading the book "Blackhawk Down" by Mark Bowden. Pay special attention to the foreward.
 
Quote    Reply

Rubicon    RE:An [objective view] of the war on terrorism sentinel   4/8/2004 7:17:35 PM
Uh. He may or may not be onegus, but he sure has his history revised.
 
Quote    Reply

On Watch    RE:An [objective view] of the war on terrorism   4/8/2004 7:19:48 PM
>>Vanguard can't be Onegus. He's far too intelligent for that. Oh boy Sentinel, you really know how to flatter the guy! 'Cept, 'gus wasn't too dumb. Oftimes he'd just throw truffles around to stir up the herd, in order to cover his tracks. >>Statements like "I see your point" and "I generally agree" are not to be found in our favorite reactionary Frenchman's vocabulary, I agree that the Mod-1 'gus was a little unfinished. However, the Mod-1B had removed many of those rough edges. Then he dropped off the scope for a while and surfaced from time to time in various configurations. I think what we're seeing here is something akin to an Eliza Dolittle makeover. He's just about mastered the US colloquial and is refining his diplomatese. >>and Vanguard has yet to call Americans stupid. Not in so many words, but his parting shots still have that old wizz-bang that we loved to hate. Maybe you're just being taken in by his 'nom de plume' - *Vanguard*, so much more refined than Sputnik! On Watch
 
Quote    Reply

Final Historian    RE:An [objective view] of the war on terrorism   4/8/2004 7:37:19 PM
This isn't gus. Gus didn't have this much tact. This guy sounds like a Poli Sci student attending an Italian University. He is thinking that the US is following the realists at the moment, when in fact Iraq was more of an idealist position.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics