Ok, all this is toward Undertoad. Sorry Dude.
Actually, the general German sentiment these days is toward pacifism. Most mainstream Germans are embarassed, for lack of a better term, by World War II.
Your idea of
radical Islam is generally correct. Saudi Arabia's rulers are the closest to a set of radical Islam rulers that I can think of (if someone else can find another one, then I stand corrected). The funny thing, though - Hussein is a secular ruler. He may impose ethnic restrictions, but he is as secular as Musharaff over in Pakistan. In many Arab countries, the trend was/is toward a more liberal set of ideals. Even Iran has been making a steady shift away from the hard-line clerics that overthrew the Shah. So you can't characterize the entire region as being full of radical Islamic
mujahideen. I think my earlier Falwell corollary is fairly appropriate.
As for the telethon... the publicly declared intent was to raise money for the victims of the Israeli attacks. As for the motives of the organizers...it's very easy to assign motives from the outside. And without the numbers to show where the money actually went, not much more than that can be known.
I don't think anyone thinks it's a good idea for a fringe group to get a hold of wmd. But when there's been no link provided between a leader and these groups and we declare that we're going to attack anyway, because we don't like the guy and think he's a threat? That's modern-day idealogical imperialism.
There's an excellent series of articles that started on Slate this week about what to do with the Middle East. While I can't say I agree with everything the author has said, so far, he seems to generally be on the right path:
link
The series is still in progress. Check it out.
And finally, deterrance becomes an archaic principle when we can't point the enemy out on a map. I don't know what should replace it though.