I think the US were wrong to go to Iraq without a UN mandate for invasion.
And what exactly do you think the UN is? Are countries that are supposed to stand for human decency and freedom supposed to wait for permission from countries like Russia and China? The membership hurts the body. The UN has its uses, but it will never be a tool to topple brutality and evil. And brutality and evil on many levels is what infects Arab society (the breeding ground of today's terrorists).
How long is humanity supposed to wait for countries like France, China, or Russia to care about Sudan? Shouldn't somebody of power just do something? Or is it supposed to take a UN mandate?
We can all (most of us) agree that the UN is broken. It serves the needs of the tyrant, not humanity. When something is broken, it should be fixed. And humanity shouldn't have to wait on the dictators of the world to agree upon a good deed.
We need a new organization. One built around true democracies with a focus on human suffering.
It is generational, and you will see that terrorism will get much worse the next generations, there will be more terrorists, more terrorism and more severe attacks, and the reason IS the "war on terror". Thats why its an utter failure, the whole retoric is wrong as it is with Iraq.
You are wrong. And this is why....
It is true that we will see terrorism get worse, but it is because of the times we are living. This "War on Terror" faces an existing terror. There is a grave difference between the terrorist of the 90's-00's and the terrorists of the 70's and 80's. What Europeans fail to grasp - what they willfully refuse to face - is that the nature of terrorism has changed. The alphebet-soup terrorists of the past, the IRA, ETA, PLO, RAF, and others were essentially political organizations with political goals. No matter how brutal their actions or unrealistic their hopes, their common intent was to change a system of government, either to gain a people's independence or to force their ideology on society. But they were not willing to destroy society to gain this. The old school terrorists that Europe outlasted (and boast experience of facing) did not seek death. They were sometimes willing to die for their causes, but they much preferred living to watch their enemies fall. None were suicide bombers, although a few killed themselves in prison as a political statement. Crucially, their goals were of this earth.
Now we face terrorists who regard death as a promotion. They reject secular ideologies and believe themselves to be instruments of their god's will. They yearn to nudge their gods along, to pursuade him through their actions that a final struggle between faith and infidelity is at hand. While they would like to see certain changes in this world-the destruction of Israel, of the United States, of the West, of the unbelievers, heretics, and Muslims whose faith is imperfect-their longed for destination is a paradise beyond the grave.
The old terrorists were often so rabid that they had to be killed or imprisoned, but others became negotiating partners for governments. From Yasser Arafat to Gerry Adams, a handful gained international status. Of course, it's of note to mention that Gerry Adams became a part of the solution which is a far cry from the constant obstacle we saw with Yasser Arafat. These were men that could be reasoned with. Ironclad doctrines and formulaic rhetoric simultaneously satisfied the old-schooler terrorists emotionally and limited their practical effectiveness: when all was said and done, far more was said than done. For today's apocalyptic terrorists the existing system is evil. It cannot be reformed. It must be destroyed to make way for Allah's design. Negotiations are no more than a tool to be used in extreme situation to allow Islamic terrorists to love to kill again another day. The god haunted terrorists we face now will never become statesmen. They wish to merely shed our blood to fortify their faith, to impose their beliefs on a sinful world, to placate a vengeful diety.
Consider what we have seen from history. Nothing is more dangerous than attempts to perfect the world. Centuries of bloodshed through wars of religion. The tyranny of monks, mullahs, and preachers all sought to create utopias or to perfect civilizations according to their religious visions. The result has always been blood shed. And the holy land is stained crimson. But what occurred in the 20th century? The trend of societal perfection worsened. Humankind began to reject God for base superstitions, from nationalism to the class struggle. The industrial age convinced intellectuals that humanity could be reduced to an assembly line, a new twist on the ideal society. As this age reached its apogee, schemes to purify the world, to create perfect orders, whether in the name of a god emporer (Communism has been observed as a religious movement without a god although the Stalins and the Maos were happy to stand in for the vanquished dieties and be worshipped), racial purity, the workers of the world, or a cultural revolution killed more people through war and organized massacre than the worst preceding centuries of plague, famine, and war had managed to do. The cost of failure was hundreds of millions of corpses, from Germany to Cambodia.
In this new age of WMD religious fanatics returned from history's grave and they have brought a vengeful god forward. And given the dangers of our technology, they may wreak greater havoc and they will insist that their god looks down approvingly, that their deeds are righteous and blessed. They do not skyjack airplanes for political gain. They hijack them to crash them and murder. They do not kidnap for mere attention. They kidnap so they can video their beheadings (human sacrifice). They do not seek a peaceful co-existence. They seek the punishment of the successful for their own failed and unrealized visions. Failing cultures take even the maddest promises of utopia seriously-whether the lies have been told in the name of Karl Marx or God or Allah.
Europeans refuse to acknowledge the differences of our time. Doing so would require deep shifts in their philosophy and practice. The threat of Muslims extremists is far more insidious than any Europe has confronted in generations, but Europeans cannot bear the reality confronting them, so they curl into denial. It will take thousands-probably many thousands-of European deaths to convince the continent that it is not immune to the plague of Islamic terror. But even many Americans are failing to grasp this new enemy's intensity, his conviction, his blindness to all that contradicts his faith as well. Especially in the U.S. and Canada, our societies have become so humane that we cannot begin to comprehend the profoundly different mentality of our enemies. How many times have you heard that today's religious terrorists perform human sacrifice? Barely ever, because the thought is gruesome and plays with dramatics. But it is true. This is something anchient that we can't quite grasp, yet it is right in front of our very eyes. Consider the taped executions of the sinful. The human calf laid at the feet of the judges as they chanted to Allah and slit its throat. We may as well be watching an Aztec religious ceremony from the anchient. 9/11 wasn't an attack as much as it was an offering by it's faithful. Islamic terrorists are Aztecs without the art. They may call their god "Allah" but their deeds belong to the alters of antiquite. They are perfect representatives of the new age of superstition.
The failures and desperations of the Middle East have all been the result of their self-prescriptive culture and the west's willingness to turn away for "stability" at all costs. Europeans (and some Americans) insist, desperately, that terrorism remains a law enforcement problem, refusing even to consider that the entire West might face a broad, psychotic threat spawned by a failed civilization. But European police forces has had more difficulty coping with a few terrorists than the American government has had in reducing the domstic threat from global terrorist networks post 9/11. A crucial reason continental Europe reacted so angrily to our liberation of Iraq was that it made it harder for them to sustain their myth of a benign world in which "peace" could be purchased and that the right dictator will enforce favorable behavioral patterns. It will be some time before you Europeans forgive America's new view on the world, but terrorism will unite us again. Europe, not North America, is the vulnerable continent. Europeans feel less secure than Americans do. Our homeland security efforts, unfairly derided at home and abroad, have made America markedly safer. Our oceans also help. America will be struck again. But Europe is going to be struck again and again and again. The Madrid train bombings or the murder of a Dutch filmaker in the street by the light of day inspired more narcissism than intellectual rigor. History and present day circumstance prove that European citizens need us far more than we will ever need Europeans.
I'm sure you are aware of this, but not a single European state - not even the UK - has successfully integrated its Muslim minority into mainstream society. Some European countries are making attempts to correct this with new laws and policies, but is it too late? I believe it is. Especially when considering the extreme bigotry in inner city Marseilles or the Muslim suburbs of Paris. Then there's Berlin-Kreuzberg. There's the immigrant quarters in any major European city. What about the countless soul-killing Muslim ghettos? And, obviosly, there is the "socialist movement" which shuns religion. Europe, especialy France and Germany, are ticking time bombs.
And none of this started with freeing Iraqis and giving the Middle East it's only hope for reform. The "War on Terror" focuses on an existing and highly ignored escellating problem.
The war is a failure, there is no doubt about that, and it has proved that the US were wrong in going to war. It will lead to more terrorism and maybe even a major conflict in the middle east.
The mid east genocide on Shiites.
And giving Iraqis freedom caused this? It's not the 14 centuries of indoctrinated hate between the two coming down to the utter failure of a civilization and culture? It's a shame that Shi'ites and Sunni can't behave without the brutalities of a dictator isn't it? Partitioning the country is probably the decent humane answer. The dictator is not.
