|
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
Agreed.
|
What the *** you are agreeing with me?
| quote: |
Agreed - aren't we doing this already?
|
Stop it your scaring me now....
But the EU nations can provide better economic support for the war on terror. Currently they aren't paying for it and aren't doing much. Some nations such as Italy have been doing troop commitements, but the more money coming into Iraq the quicker and the higher the chances that Iraq will turn into a liberal democracy.
| quote: |
We have "beefed" up our security a notch, but I think that most of us (me at least) would protest a patriot act. |
Altough most Europeans countries actually have most of the "patriot act" powers today, they seem to do little with the necessities to capture terrorist.
Had the Spanish police tortured the driver of the van who had 500kg of dynamite last week, they could have probably avert this event. Europeans are generally very averse to taking this point of view, even though if they had tortured the driver (and I'm not even talking abouttaking off eyes and limbs, simply waking him up every 5 min for 2 days) perhaps 1800 people would have been alive or uninjured today.
| quote: |
What good would that do? How did Bush's "axis of evil"-speech help him control events in North Korea and Iran? |
I'll tell you what good. But understand you must understand this concept first. Force is as powerful when you don't use it as when you do. America doesn't have to actually use its military force in every case, many times just the threat of it is enough to make people think twice.
When Europe dismays the "axis of evil" they bring those nations a false sense of security, "Americans would never invade us the world would cry out against them". So the American theoratical force disappears, and the USA is forced to either act with REAL force, or no force at all. The middle option disappears when you don't recognize force, there is no 'theoratical force'.
For instance, imagine the USA in a world with no "internatioanl community". If it told Iran to change its policies and stop supporting terror of all kinds or else.
Well lets just sya, I don't think Iran would chose the or else bit.
So in this hypothetical the outcome would be as equal to the use of force, but just with the threat of force, no actual usage of such.
This is the same principle that makes a man under gunpoint give a the theif "all his money", because the guy is pretty sure the theif will blow out his brains if he doesn't.
Yet when you take away the threat of force, you are then left with either to do nothing, or something. And I understand Europeans are opposed to force, but by doing such you actually force the use of force in more instances then needed.
If Europe just "shuts up and stands behind the USA" more progress like this can be achieved. And most likely the demands the USA would impose to terror sponsering regiems is stop supporting terrorism (which would benifit both Europe and USA), not necissairly the dismanteling of regiemes.
well enough of that
___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!
Click here to support the free mustard alliance.
|