Re: LOTR and 20th Century Western European Prejudices

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> On 29 Nov 2003 16:45:21 -0800, Jordan179 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >I love the way that you're assuming that the only possible threats to
> >Europe are Europe herself and Russia. You're ignoring, of course,
> >radical Islamic fundamentalism, which directly threatens Europe in
> >Spain, France, and the Balkans.
> 
> If all the Muslim countries banded together today and attacked 
> Europe, I doubt if they'd get more than 100 miles from the Turkish 
> border.

You are quite right -- assuming "today" and a conventional war.

However, you should logically consider the implications of the facts
that radical Islamic fundamentalism is waxing in strength and has
previously shown itself unwilling to let itself be bound by the limits
of conventional warfare. Given time, and free of interference by
foreign military might, the Islamic fundamentalists will seize control
of more Islamic states, increase their military budgets, and use them
as bases for both terrorist and missile attacks on whatever targets
they choose.

European liberalism is _not_ waxing in strength, it is _not_
increasing in military might, and it chooses to bind itself not merely
by the limits of conventional warfare but (if European criticism of
America is not wholly hypocritical) by all sorts of weird and
wonderful new "rules" (no cutting off food to besieged cities, no
killing of civilians even as part of collateral damage from
airstrikes, etc.) which, if praticed, would severely hamper any
real-world military campaign.

Furthermore, you are unrealistically assuming both that Islam and that
Europe would be militarily united. Of the states which Islamic
fundamentalism has targetted, all except France are relatively weak
and unpopular. What is highly probable is that the fundamentalists
would base from one Islamic state to attack the weakest European
states, while other Islamic states publicly claimed neutrality while
secretly supporting the terrorists, during the terrorist phase of the
war.

Unless we want to assume that Europe is anti-Semitic, we must
logically assume that the victim European state would be held to the
same impossible standards that Europe holds Israel too. Consequently,
every atrocity against the victim state would be met by cries from the
others that we must seriously consider the grievances of the
terrorists; every effort the victim state made to fight back would be
condemned as itself being an atrocity.

Even if we assume that Europe _has_ recently been both anti-Semitic
and hypocritical, and would toss aside the unrealistic standards it
tries to hold America and Israel too were European states the targets,
there is no guarantee that Europe could win, let alone win easily, if
forced to fight without American support. Remember that the Islamic
states would be purchasing more and more military equipment, including
aircraft and warships; furthermore, unimpeded by America, several of
them would possess nuclear missile capability.

Now the question would be whether or not Europe is also being
hypocritical by condemning America's pursuit of missile defense. For
the sake of Europe, I would _hope_ it is hypocrisy, because if it
wasn't, what would happen would be that a few "frontline" Islamic
states would sacrifice themselves by allowing themselves to be used to
launch stratetic nuclear strikes against Europe. A missile
defense-less Europe would then suffer horrible and economically
ruinous damage to her major cities, and devastate the "frontline"
Islamic states ...

... whereupon the untouched non-frontline Islamic states would pick up
the pieces.

> >It's not a matter of US bases in Europe, it's a matter of US military
> >might as a whole. If America were to withdraw from the world -- back
> >to the sort of isolationism that we practiced in the 1920's and 1930's
> >-- America would cease to be a major target for the Islamicists.
> >
> >Europe would replace her in that role. 
> 
> Er, why? It's silly to sugest people would say "America isn't around 
> any more, let's attack Europe instead".

1) Europe would acquire the interest in the Mideastern oil fields
which America would have abandoned. (America can supply most of her
oil needs from her own fields and from Latin American fields, and make
up the difference by investing in atomic energy: Europe with the
exception of France is far more dependent upon Mideastern oil). Thus,
Europe would become the visible representation of "the West" in the
Mideast.

2) Europe is physically closer to dar-al-Islam than is America, and
parts of Europe were once ruled by Islam (no parts of America ever
were). Hence, Europe is a clear target for Islamic irredentism.

3) European countries have much larger Islamic minorities, as a
percentage of their populations, than do American countries.
Furthermore, most European countries have been far less successful at
integrating the Islamic immigrants into their societies than has
America.
 
> Most Muslim countries have friendly relations with the EU -- some of 
> them are likely to join over the coming decades. Of the others, none 
> has even a remote possibility of beating the EU in a war, and they 
> know it.

Right now. Again: Islamic military might is waxing, while Europe's
remains stationary. Think of the British naval position vis-a-vis
Germany in 1875: did the fact that British superiority was
near-absolute in the 1870's really mean that Britain had nothing to
worry about in the near future?

> That leaves terrorism. Which can be combatted in two ways: police 
> and intelligence work to infiltrate and round up terror networks, 

Unless the Islamic countries themselves support these efforts, they
will be futile: they will make it harder for terrorists to penetrate,
but the terrorist sources of command, supply, and training will remain
secure. European victory will then be impossible, and European
economic and political stability will be severely threatened by
terrorist attacks of escalating frequency and intensity ...

... unless, of course, Europe picks up the war that (in this
hypothetical future) America abandoned. But don't expect American
support in this, once we've quitted the field. Heck, maybe we'll be
vindictive and veto all European attempts for Europe to get UN backing
in her crusade.:)

> and in the long term, creating the conditions where Muslims don't 
> feel a sense of grievance against Europe, and therefore recruitment 
> to terror groups would slack of.

This sounds impossible. How can Europe do this, given that Europe does
not actually control the Islamic countries, and given that one of the
reasons for the "sense of grievance" is simply that Europe has been
more successful in objective economic and military terms than Islam?

Short of Europe _becoming_ Islamic, I don't see any possible
compromise.

Sincerely Yours,
Jordan