Quote:
Originally Posted by Mynydd
Kalevi, not taking preemptive actions against trojan and bordering Muslim countries would send a sign of weakness which would undoubtedly be exploited by Muslims. It is a necessary step to keep Europe strong both inside and at its borders. Further, it would send the wrong message that Europe is prepared to step back if it is blackmailed.
Notice that the poll reads "preemptive/preventive (military or political) actions". I'm confident that you will be able to see that political actions allow for a wide range of possibilities, from short to long term.
You've put as an example that one of the targeted Muslim countries might call in Muslim terrorists as a retaliation for Europe's policies. So what? Under strict policies to prevent any Muslim flow from that country, those terrorists would be left with the only alternative to blow themselves up in that country, since they wouldn't be able to reach Europe from it.
|
Arguably, Europe needs the outside world more than the outside world needs it -- for resources, if nothing else. Thus Britain, for instance, consumes resources that need five times its land area. I'm sure the same is true for Belgium and Holland, and to a slightly lesser extent, Germany and France. Indeed, the modern era in world history is all about European countries looking for resources abroad -- and not the other way around. So it's imperative that Europe develop some
modus vivendi with the outside world -- including moslem countries. Under these circumstances, it's unrealistic to suppose all people flows can be stopped.
I'm uncomfortable with "preemptive actions" if alternatives exist (and I believe they do in this instance); thus, in 1914, many of the major powers were trying to take preemptive actions against one another -- no-one anticipated a worldwide conflagration that would change the topography of the world. I feel it's the same here: "preemptive actions" (whatever that means precisely) are likely to be counterproductive.
Nor am I happy with the "clash of civilisations" thesis, pushed forward by Huntingdon and other US neocons. It's too black-and-white, too simple for a complex and nuanced world where we have shades of gray. Europe -- like Russia -- will need a "near abroad": a buffer zone where it exercises some influence. This could include countries like Turkey.
Just my opinions. Not necessarily correct, and I'm willing to examine counterarguments (which might be more persuasive than my own arguments).