I have come across a rather refreshing take on the U.S. and Britain foreign policy. Th author points out that countries like Pakistan and others in the middle east like to do a lot of blaming and not enough taking responsibility for their own ills.
Honestly I think he nails it on the head here. When are we going to stop letting them lay it all on the west?
That is true - but even then the threat needs to be assessed realistically. For decades the Soviet threat was blown way out of proportion and generations of children got to practice 'duck and cover' as part of their school drills - like hiding under a desk was going to save them from a nuke. It was never anything more than fear mongering so the military & intelligence community could expand their capacities and arms companies could get huge contracts. For fuck sakes, they got a senile old president to sign legislation for an outer space defense program named after a sci fi movie.
If we go in and try to police radical Islam it will just go underground and gain in appeal to a young generation feeling their sovereignty has been compromised. There is no way that sort of policing can be maintained for a century and no reason to think such radical elements would fade away in only a century. At some point we would have to leave and those elements would rise back up and we'ld be right back here.
Let them build their nukes and focus on the eastern European missile defense system. If they test their nuke, cut off every damn penny of international trade, cut off every route of goods being shipped. If they arm a warhead, arm ten. If they fire a warhead, fire ten back. MAD - Mutually assured destruction. They can't blow up the entire world, but as soon as they start trying their own people - the vast majority who have doubts about all the afterlife bullshit - will rise up. If they won't, then we are fucked no matter what we do.
Remember, democracies don't go to war with other democracies. It's never happened.
There's an incomplete list of past wars between democracies here. I could add some more, like the South Ossetian War (Russia/Georgia, 2008) - but you'd probably counter with a 'true scotsman' fallacy (i.e., "none of them are or were real democracies".)
Democracies don't support terrorist organizations as well.
For the record, the last terrorist organization in history who unambiguously identified itself as such (i.e., 'terrorist') was Lehi. (aka the Stern group.) They even defined what they meant by 'terror' in a famous document (aptly titled 'Terror'.) Not only did Lehi get support from the democratic state of Israel, one of its leaders eventually became Prime Minister here.
Jaume: Simply tell me when was the last time two democracies went to war with each other? Please name me the specific countries and yes, they must fit the true definition of a democracy. Your case was in no way "two democracies";
and I did visit your site, please something recent?? None of those countries provided fit the model of true secular representative democracies.
and I did visit your site, please something recent??
Aha. I note that you claimed that "it's never happened", and now you want "something recent"?
None of those countries provided fit the model of true secular representative democracies.
Aha, at last: something that looks like a definition. Great, that's a welcome and refreshing improvement.
TRUE. SECULAR. REPRESENTATIVE. DEMOCRACIES. That's it?
Well, if 2008 is recent enough for you, the CIA World Factbook (maybe you can point us to a more reliable source) presents both Georgia and Russia as republics (or a federation of republics) with representative assemblies and heads of state that are both elected by popular suffrage. 'Representative', 'democracy', check.
Unfortunately the CIA Factbook remains silent on secularism in these countries, but according to Wikipedia, both Georgia and Russia are considered to be secular states. 'Secular', check.
So what remains is the 'true' bit, but that's where the 'true Scotsman' fallacy I alluded to earlier kicks in. I'm afraid noone could check this one without looking biased.
Now, it's true that the Federation of Russia doen't really fit my view of a functional liberal democracy. The point you're trying to defend is known as democratic peace theory in academic circles, but if you look at the article, you'll notice it has critics as well as proponents. Specifically, the criticism I made above holds here:
Research on the democratic peace theory has to define "democracy" and "peace" (or, more often, "war"). Similarly, the main criticism contends that the theory is an example of equivocation, particularly, No true Scotsman fallacy.
Had you said that liberal democracies are far less prone to go to war with each other than any other combination of forms of government, I'd have agreed with you. But making claims like "it's never happened" as if it were undisputable fact, when the claim relies on assumptions that are wide open to interpretation, is well over the top.