Thread: Why Terrorism Exists

We have definitely royally pissed off terrorists. There is no question about it. But they were already royally pissed at us. Cops royally piss off gang leaders when they take control of the gang's neighborhood. Gang members might lash out against the cops, whom they already hated in the first place, and the innocents in the neighborhood and say it is because the cops were on their "turf" and "provoked" them. That does not mean the cops did anything unjustifiable, it does not mean that the cops did not do what had to be done, and it does not mean that the cops should have left the gang alone to do whatever evil it felt like doing.

The same is the case with the United States. No matter how much you can connect our actions to increased anger of terrorists, the truth is that our actions are justified. Our actions are necessary, overall. Just like with cops, sometimes moves we make turn out to be mistakes. Allying with the Hussein regime against Iran was definitely a mistake, for example. But we are dealing with gangs that seek to die to kill you in the name of Allah and Paradise. Yes, you. Literally you. That is a fact. They want to end your life. Even complete U.S. isolationism would never change that. They believe that "infidels" are to be killed because that is in fact what a literal interpretation of the Koran says. You can read some of the threads in the Religion forum for verification of that. Islamofascists are a rotten disease on this planet. The world is going to have to deal with them. There is no way around it. People who have their beliefs, mentalities, and lacks of conscience will not go into some love one another state of Utopia just because they don't have Western presence in their "holy land". It does not work that way.

You asked if the U.S. has done anything "wrong". In terms of mistakes, absolutely. In terms of high level acts of clear evil, yes also, but not in our Middle East policies of the last few decades. The specific ways the leaders handled the Vietnam situation looks pretty bad and possibly atrociously evil in certain areas, but the fighting of the Cold War itself was very necessary. As for Islamofascism, we are dealing with an insanely dangerous and extremely difficult puzzle. Mistakes will be made, but the overall goal is profoundly justifiable. We are not dealing with an easy situation.

The U.S. did all kinds of horrible things in the area of foreign policy before the industrial revolution. The allowance of the African slave trade and the taking over of land purely for U.S. expansion are at the tip top of the list. The U.S. was much more of a primitive savage country back then. In recent years, and even at this very moment, we are involved in a war on drugs that seems to very possibly have corruption written all over it, domestically and internationally. It will probably some day be seen as a holocaust. I still question how sinister the government's intentions in it are, but it does a poor job in a smell test. When Pablo Escobar got so rich off the illegal (and therefore highly expensive) cocaine trade, he got so powerful he practically took over Columbia. Legalizing cocaine in the United States would have crippled Escobar in a hurry, just like it would have crippled everybody of his kind. Yet we continued the war instead. That is an area where the U.S. is doing what I think is terrible and very counterproductive, but the overall intentions might possibly be good, though I doubt it is entirely true. I say that because I believe that the war on drugs is an awful idea. But I honestly believe that the war on terror is necessary.

Jaasum, do you ever speak with as much passion against Islamofascists as you do against the United States? I know you mentioned that you don't agree with what they do. But do you ever get into majorly passionate condemnation of them for entire paragraphs or long posts? I ask the same of everybody else who has been recurringly condemning U.S. policy concerning the Middle East. Just how passsionately against the fundamentalist Muslim terrorists' actions are you? I have not seen strong passion yet.

There is only one question worth answering:

How many innocent men, women, and children is it worth killing to destroy one terrorist?

Originally Posted by R.D.735

There is only one question worth answering:

How many innocent men, women, and children is it worth killing to destroy one terrorist?

One terrorist? That depends on who the one terrorist is and how many more innocent people he would kill if he were not destroyed/captured. We do not target the innocent, we do use precision weaponry, and we are very careful when it comes to getting just one terrorist. If you are talking about Saddam, Hussein, it was a government we we had to destroy, not just Saddam Hussein. We were destroying his large scale government power and his legacy. We were also changing the nature of the Middle East, and still are. The future of the world is depending on it.

If we did not care about innocent people, the Middle East would be a sheet of glass with American flag decorated oil wells all over it. We could do that in a very short time from the air with no U.S. casualties. We are going through a Hell of a lot of trouble and controversy over the sanctity of innocence.

It depends, does it?

If it is believed that the terrorists would destroy the entire Western world if we do not fight them, is genocide not justifiable as a means of extermination?

If the world is depending on the success of the war, then shouldn't we be willing to sacrifice a large part of the world in order to destroy terrorism? Why don't we use nuclear weapons if the threat is so dire?

If the sanctity of innocence was important at all, why did the war begin in the first place? Surely we knew untold thousands would die.

Terrorism exists, because terror does.

Terror exists, because humans do.

Why it's done, is because of ignorance.

If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. ~ Matthew 15:14

Originally Posted by R.D.735

It depends, does it?

If it is believed that the terrorists would destroy the entire Western world if we do not fight them, is genocide not justifiable as a means of extermination?

If the world is depending on the success of the war, then shouldn't we be willing to sacrifice a large part of the world in order to destroy terrorism? Why don't we use nuclear weapons if the threat is so dire?

If the sanctity of innocence was important at all, why did the war begin in the first place? Surely we knew untold thousands would die.

Any misfortune that is not necessary should be avoided. But some misfortune is worth the avoidance of much greater misfortune. If you can kill one innocent person and save a thousand, and you don't do it, you have allowed an extra 999 innocent deaths.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We do not target the innocent, we do use precision weaponry, and we are very careful when it comes to getting just one terrorist.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=15730707

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If you are talking about Saddam, Hussein, it was a government we we had to destroy, not just Saddam Hussein.

But we destroyed a whole country. I'm pretty sure more people are miserable in Iraq now than when our ex-friend Saddam was in power.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We were destroying his large scale government power and his legacy. We were also changing the nature of the Middle East, and still are. The future of the world is depending on it.

There are other ways to do it that don't involve bombing people and sending Americans to get killed (for oil). Such as: get out and stay out of their countries, ignore them, develop alternative sources of energy, let them come to us when they need help, which they will.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If we did not care about innocent people, the Middle East would be a sheet of glass with American flag decorated oil wells all over it.

People in this day and age wouldn't stand for that (I hope). We need the lies and illusions for people to be able to tolerate what is going on now; and the policiticians couldn't justify doing what you are talking about. If they could, who knows; that might be what would have happened. It could still happen.


Oh yea, don't interpret this to mean that I have sympathy for terrorists or anything, because I don't. But "terrorists" are what countries call the opposite side in a conflict when they are much weaker and all they can do is throw rocks, blow themselves up, etc. I don't know why they call every single person fighting against us in Iraq a "terrorist"--it seems like they are the just other side in this war. The word has become meaningless.

[QUOTE]One terrorist? That depends on who the one terrorist is and how many more innocent people he would kill if he were not destroyed/captured. We do not target the innocent, we do use precision weaponry, and we are very careful when it comes to getting just one terrorist. If you are talking about Saddam, Hussein, it was a government we we had to destroy, not just Saddam Hussein. We were destroying his large scale government power and his legacy. We were also changing the nature of the Middle East, and still are. The future of the world is depending on it. [QUOTE]

Hardly the fate of the world is at stake, it seems your government randomly picked out a country that was totalarian and made an excuse that was a lie and then invaded.

The USA does not use priecision weaponry as often as you say.

Airstrikes in cities,blowing up houses and artillery fire inside towns.

The US has killed many civilans with many so called "prescion weapons"

The world does not depend on you people if anything the american government is fucking the world over and making the world a more unstable place as a result that is fact.

The U.S. did all kinds of horrible things in the area of foreign policy before the industrial revolution. The allowance of the African slave trade and the taking over of land purely for U.S. expansion are at the tip top of the list. The U.S. was much more of a primitive savage country back then.

In terms of foreign policy it looks like to me the US hasnt changed much...remember the attemped coup in Venezuela largely beleived to have had American backers involved.

UM is right about if we didnt care about innocents then all of Iraq would just be demolished and we would own it by using air strikes. Deception plays a part in every war of course, but if the government just wanted to take over iraq without thinking of innocents.... back when we started this war politicians would have had no problem selling that we needed to carpet bomb the country and that only the kurds are our allies. Back then it would have been easy to say that all Iraqis hate us because everyone believed that the whole middle east was out to get us. Of course now we all know this isnt true in Iraq, but I use as evidence that most people now believe all Iranians hate us thanks to the media and politicians.

Now people have one of two positions regardless if they were pro war to start with...one: if we didnt care about innocents we would just leave and let them kill eachother in a civil war, these are the people who are pro staying there until a government is stable.

two: we dont care about innocents because we are staying there and killing innocents while fighting terrorists, these are the people against us staying until a stable government is formed.

Seems like no matter what the US does now it will still be the bad guy. Im on the side of staying until a stable government and military is in place and then gtfo of there

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If we did not care about innocent people, the Middle East would be a sheet of glass with American flag decorated oil wells all over it. We could do that in a very short time from the air with no U.S. casualties.

No. We couldn't. Why couldn't we? Because every nation on the planet would turn against us; the American people at large would turn against our government; foreign relations would take a severe hit (both in terms of economically and the possibility of any allied forces, in future military campaigns), and our government, in the eyes of the entire world, would be the same "terrorist organization" that we have just labeled the Iranian Republican Guard. Don't assume that our not carpet-bombing Iraq has only to do with benevolence. There is much more to it than that.

Originally Posted by moonbeam

But we destroyed a whole country. I'm pretty sure more people are miserable in Iraq now than when our ex-friend Saddam was in power.

Not only did we destroy a whole country, but we are creating future terrorists; have all but destroyed our public image by not only initiating this premature war (and by this premature war, I mean the one against Iraq and not the people that actually attacked us); and also, by breaking so many congressional and constitutional laws in the process that even the American peoples' trust in government is waning even more than ever, we are destroying ourselves with this war (such as circumventing a napalm ban by using white phosphorous on the battlefield, among other tactics).

Our government has created the illusion that "terrorism" (which is a method, not an ideology) can be stamped out with a military of any size, and that is simply not true.
What happens when we leave? What happens ten years down the road, when the philosophy of radical Islam has had a chance to regain steam? They will start growing in numbers again. They will begin further undermining our national security measures (which are a joke, anyway. Border fence, anyone?) Do we start all over?

What happens if we stay? Does anyone really think that the American military force overseas can outlast a force that takes merely the word-of-mouth spreading of radical-Islamic principles and IED's that can be put-together in minutes, at little to no cost? I believe that would be a ridiculous assertion. Whenever this military campaign stops, there will still be enough radical Islamists, world-wide, to continue their campaign against us, and they will. There will be other bin Laden's, Al Ziwahiri's, etc. (and, heaven forbid, other 9/11's) We are fighting against an ideology (radical islam, not terrorism), and ideologies - especially those that are religion-based - spread faster than any military can defend against. Remember, we live in a world where hate-speak reaches the masses at broadband speed. Is this not common sense to the people that are sending thousands and thousands of people over there to die fighting for a region that will, in all probability, never be what we consider stable? We're already seeing that the Iraqi forces aren't even pulling their weight. We are sending our men over there and only asking that the Iraqi's meet benchmarks that we set, so that we know they are working towards stability. They've only met, what, maybe 20% of what had been projected for this period?

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Hardly the fate of the world is at stake, it seems your government randomly picked out a country that was totalarian and made an excuse that was a lie and then invaded.

Nah. It wasn't just any totalitarian country at random. It was the one where we had the most to gain by protecting American interests. The totalitarianism excuse (I believe) is more of a front, than anything else. Otherwise, we would have been sending scores of troops into Africa to stop the genocide. But, as we all know, that entire situation was all but ignored by the Administration, accept as a use for sound-bites from press conferencess saying how "deplorable" it was.

Originally Posted by tdkyo

Deception plays a part in every war of course, but if the government just wanted to take over iraq without thinking of innocents.... back when we started this war politicians would have had no problem selling that we needed to carpet bomb the country and that only the kurds are our allies. Back then it would have been easy to say that all Iraqis hate us because everyone believed that the whole middle east was out to get us. Of course now we all know this isnt true in Iraq, but I use as evidence that most people now believe all Iranians hate us thanks to the media and politicians.

I don't really believe that that many people believed all of Iraq was out to get us, or that that many people believe, now, that all Iranians hate us. Definitely not enough so that the government could sell a carpet-bombing campaign to us. I see where you're coming from, though.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We have definitely royally pissed off terrorists. There is no question about it. But they were already royally pissed at us. Cops royally piss off gang leaders when they take control of the gang's neighborhood. Gang members might lash out against the cops, whom they already hated in the first place, and the innocents in the neighborhood and say it is because the cops were on their "turf" and "provoked" them. That does not mean the cops did anything unjustifiable, it does not mean that the cops did not do what had to be done, and it does not mean that the cops should have left the gang alone to do whatever evil it felt like doing.

The same is the case with the United States. No matter how much you can connect our actions to increased anger of terrorists, the truth is that our actions are justified. Our actions are necessary, overall. Just like with cops, sometimes moves we make turn out to be mistakes. Allying with the Hussein regime against Iran was definitely a mistake, for example. But we are dealing with gangs that seek to die to kill you in the name of Allah and Paradise. Yes, you. Literally you. That is a fact. They want to end your life. Even complete U.S. isolationism would never change that. They believe that "infidels" are to be killed because that is in fact what a literal interpretation of the Koran says. You can read some of the threads in the Religion forum for verification of that. Islamofascists are a rotten disease on this planet. The world is going to have to deal with them. There is no way around it. People who have their beliefs, mentalities, and lacks of conscience will not go into some love one another state of Utopia just because they don't have Western presence in their "holy land". It does not work that way.

You asked if the U.S. has done anything "wrong". In terms of mistakes, absolutely. In terms of high level acts of clear evil, yes also, but not in our Middle East policies of the last few decades. The specific ways the leaders handled the Vietnam situation looks pretty bad and possibly atrociously evil in certain areas, but the fighting of the Cold War itself was very necessary. As for Islamofascism, we are dealing with an insanely dangerous and extremely difficult puzzle. Mistakes will be made, but the overall goal is profoundly justifiable. We are not dealing with an easy situation.

The U.S. did all kinds of horrible things in the area of foreign policy before the industrial revolution. The allowance of the African slave trade and the taking over of land purely for U.S. expansion are at the tip top of the list. The U.S. was much more of a primitive savage country back then. In recent years, and even at this very moment, we are involved in a war on drugs that seems to very possibly have corruption written all over it, domestically and internationally. It will probably some day be seen as a holocaust. I still question how sinister the government's intentions in it are, but it does a poor job in a smell test. When Pablo Escobar got so rich off the illegal (and therefore highly expensive) cocaine trade, he got so powerful he practically took over Columbia. Legalizing cocaine in the United States would have crippled Escobar in a hurry, just like it would have crippled everybody of his kind. Yet we continued the war instead. That is an area where the U.S. is doing what I think is terrible and very counterproductive, but the overall intentions might possibly be good, though I doubt it is entirely true. I say that because I believe that the war on drugs is an awful idea. But I honestly believe that the war on terror is necessary.

Jaasum, do you ever speak with as much passion against Islamofascists as you do against the United States? I know you mentioned that you don't agree with what they do. But do you ever get into majorly passionate condemnation of them for entire paragraphs or long posts? I ask the same of everybody else who has been recurringly condemning U.S. policy concerning the Middle East. Just how passsionately against the fundamentalist Muslim terrorists' actions are you? I have not seen strong passion yet.

I am not simply talking about pissing off terrorists. The terrorists aren't simply pissed off because they have nothing better to do. Usually their reactions are a retaliation to our killing of innocent people. That is why I keep stressing that you cannot compare our relationship with terrorism and the middle east with a criminal/police anology in a neighborood setting, it simple isnt the same and to think of it in that matter is an oversimplification.

We have done countless things in the middle east that are unjustifiable and evil. We not meaning you and I but our nation, and it usually happens behind the peoples back or without the people's say.

You also seem (seem) to think that what we have done in the past is forgotten, it isn't. We like to forget, but extreme radicals do not.

And to answer your final question, every post I have made is radically and passionately against terrorism. It just isn't the hyped up emotional faux patriotism that the "Have you forgotten 9/11" right agenda pushes. No I haven't forgotten 9/11 and no I do not side with terrorists I hate them just as much as you do. Where I differ from you is that I try to approach the situation objectively and logically and I see a better solution to end terrorism and to bring those that did wrong to justice rather than the method you approve of, which I see as increasing terrorism and the extreme hatred that leads to it. If I know and believe the things I do then I would be a fool to think a war in Iraq and a possible war in Iran would do anything to end terrorism or make the US a safer place. Not to mention the financial ruin we are headed for and a draft if the latter takes place. You passion against "Islamofacism" is blind and ignorant, and I mean that with all sincerity.

Sanctions, bombings, terrorism, building up one nation against another, overthrowing democratic leaders, turning on our allies, stealing people's oil, building bases in their countries are NOT justifiable. These are forms of justice they are forms of nationalism and control and they harm innocent people. Terrorists are extreme but you are missing the motive factor, which we are guilty off. It doesn't justify what they do, not in the least, but what we do isn't justified either and if stopped it as we rightfully should do so, the terrorism would end, and I am certain of that.

Nah. It wasn't just any totalitarian country at random. It was the one where we had the most to gain by protecting American interests.

When you say it was one where you (americans) had to gain by protecting american interests, what do you mean?

Are you refering to oil?

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

When you say it was one where you (americans) had to gain by protecting american interests, what do you mean?

Are you refering to oil?

More or less, yes. As UM said: If we were to take full control of that region, we would have control of all of the oil that that region possesses. Even if complete control were left to the Iraqi's, they would (more or less) owe that control to us, after all of the instability now. Having a close ally that owns all of the oil in that region is the next best thing to owning all of the oil in that region.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

More or less, yes. As UM said: If we were to take full control of that region, we would have control of all of the oil that that region possesses. Even if complete control were left to the Iraqi's, they would (more or less) owe that control to us, after all of the instability now. Having a close ally that owns all of the oil in that region is the next best thing to owning all of the oil in that region.

Except it's not "we", as in the people. It's all for corporations to get rich on.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Except it's not "we", as in the people. It's all for corporations to get rich on.

Exactly. A lot of times when I use "we" I don't mean "we the people." I mean America in general. In that context, I meant the American government and corporative powers.

Don't muslim people raise and love their children? Don't they care for their sick and give charity to their poor? Don't they serve their friends and family with loyalty? And yet here you are UM, claiming they are born and raised in a culture of hatred and violence. And you evidence rivals that used by the girls in the movie Crucible. You rely on the fact that there is no evidence for or against that to the average American, you simply claim it, and its true.

And now people are being born and raised in this country to hate Muslim people because of attacks they committed from the exact same misconceptions of us, and the cycle continues. The greedy have played off our fear and ignorance to gain wealth and as you continue to pretend that the United States has not had a part in corrupting the natures of the terrorists by bringing their culture to the brink, you continue to catalyze ignorance. But you don't profit from it. In the long run, you can only suffer from it as terrorists will continue to be bred out of fear and desolation, and our generalized hatred will continue to breed as our media continue to draw a curtain over recent history of our transgressions.

It's exactly what they want, both the corrupt leaders of the Muslim world, and of this one. As long as we, the people, hate each other and not the bastards that profit from such hatred, they will continue to win.

Originally Posted by skysaw

I think you're missing the point on this one. Blackwater is not a part of the military! They are private Rent-a-Goons that do not have to follow military law. This is exactly the problem, because this means they do not have to be held to the same standards as the armed forces. They can run around over there, ignore basic protocol and US military planning, and create a relations disaster.

I am not familiar with that. Who takes on the responsibility of renting them?

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Perhaps the reason we are capturing and killing terrorists like flies is because there are so many of them. It's as if the War on Terror hasn't had any effect at all, unless you count the NIE's statement that the number of terrorists is growing, despite all of the killing we're doing. It's almost as if more terrorists are created than we are destroying. Is it so far-fetched to think our actions are exacerbating terrorism rather than tamping it down?

Any action, no matter how vile, can be justified by arguing that things will get better in the future for the victims, and that will make it all worthwhile. The future will always be better than the present at some point, regardless of what atrocities take place, and such an justification takes advantage of that inevitability.

I'm not sure what 'plan' you're referring to when you say the war put a big dent in it. If the plan was for the cycle of murder and revenge to continue indefinitely, then it is certainly moving along as planned. If you are referring to terrorist plots to gain political power by inciting chaos, that's going along well, especially since the only secular dictatorship in the Mid-East is gone. What plan are you referring to?

Governments can give major funding and major weapons to organizations like Al Qaeda, WMD's such as nuclear weapons if we are not on their asses at every turn. Even that is not totally dependable. That is a big part of the reason overthrowing the Hussein regime and the Taliban was so important.

Two weeks ago, we had the first week of zero U.S. casualties in Iraq. Many parts of Iraq are in great condition, and we have gotten a lot more Iraqi people to turn on the terrorists in the past few months. Things are getting better. They can have an awesome country. They could never have had that under the Hussein regime. The world is going to be a better place because of this.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Don't muslim people raise and love their children? Don't they care for their sick and give charity to their poor? Don't they serve their friends and family with loyalty? And yet here you are UM, claiming they are born and raised in a culture of hatred and violence. And you evidence rivals that used by the girls in the movie Crucible. You rely on the fact that there is no evidence for or against that to the average American, you simply claim it, and its true.

And now people are being born and raised in this country to hate Muslim people because of attacks they committed from the exact same misconceptions of us, and the cycle continues. The greedy have played off our fear and ignorance to gain wealth and as you continue to pretend that the United States has not had a part in corrupting the natures of the terrorists by bringing their culture to the brink, you continue to catalyze ignorance. But you don't profit from it. In the long run, you can only suffer from it as terrorists will continue to be bred out of fear and desolation, and our generalized hatred will continue to breed as our media continue to draw a curtain over recent history of our transgressions.

It's exactly what they want, both the corrupt leaders of the Muslim world, and of this one. As long as we, the people, hate each other and not the bastards that profit from such hatred, they will continue to win.

Huh? Where do you get that I am against all Muslims? I have a problem with the religion itself, just like I have a problem with Christianity itself. Both religions are very dangerous when their "holy" books' words are taken literally. Islamofascists take the Koran's words literally. That makes them want to kill "infidels" to please Allah so they can screw virgins. That means we have a huge problem on our hands. But most Muslims do not take the text so literally, so I don't have a problem with most Muslims.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I am not familiar with that. Who takes on the responsibility of renting them?

Wow. With all of the discussion that has been going on about the war, lately, I'm really surprised you're not familiar with Blackwater USA, UM. They have been all over the news, recently.

They are basically mercenaries that the U.S. government hires. They have been coming into play a lot, lately, because the U.S. forces are having a lot of trouble doing the job "on their own." The most recent scandal has come because many (not just the ones skysaw mentioned) civilian deaths have been caused by Blackwater agents and, unlike the U.S. military, they face no immediate consequences for their actions. They operate outside of U.S. military directives and, over there, U.S. civil law doesn't necessarily apply.

In other words, they are unbound vigilantes (more or less), hired by the U.S. to help us fight, but are automatically exonerated for things that military personnel would be court-martialed for, or worse.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Wow. With all of the discussion that has been going on about the war, lately, I'm really surprised you're not familiar with Blackwater USA, UM. They have been all over the news, recently.

They are basically mercenaries that the U.S. government hires. They have been coming into play a lot, lately, because the U.S. forces are having a lot of trouble doing the job "on their own." The most recent scandal has come because many (not just the ones skysaw mentioned) civilian deaths have been caused by Blackwater agents and, unlike the U.S. military, they face no immediate consequences for their actions. They operate outside of U.S. military directives and, over there, U.S. civil law doesn't necessarily apply.

In other words, they are unbound vigilantes (more or less), hired by the U.S. to help us fight, but are automatically exonerated for things that military personnel would be court-martialed for, or worse.

I am familiar with the term and what they generally do, but the "vigilantes for hire" part is something I missed. It seems to me that if they are working for the government, which I assumed was the case the times I came across their name, the government is responsible for their actions in the scope of employment. That does not mean they should be responsible for everthing they do in life. If the government is not being held responsible for their reportedly wrong actions on the job, they should be. I am of course speaking in hypotheticals here. I will need to look more into the details of what you and Skysaw are saying before I comment about facts.

EDIT: I just read the Wikipedia article. It looks like there are several investigations of them being conducted and Congress is pushing a bill to make contractor crimes in Iraq prosecutable in the United States. The bill has already been passed in the House. And of course the Iraqi government is free to prosecute them for crimes in Iraq. They are also being sued on behalf of certain Iraqi families. They are not exactly above all laws and free to rape and plunder.

From Universal Mind
Two weeks ago, we had the first week of zero U.S. casualties in Iraq. Many parts of Iraq are in great condition, and we have gotten a lot more Iraqi people to turn on the terrorists in the past few months. Things are getting better. They can have an awesome country. They could never have had that under the Hussein regime. The world is going to be a better place because of this.

We should not mistake recovery for improvement. The world will become a better place, certainly, but it will not be because hundreds of thousands of innocent people were killed or because terrorist groups were given the greatest recruiting tool they have ever known. It won't be a better place because the status of the U.S. as a powerful broker of peace was thrown out the window. If and when Iraq becomes a great and wealthy nation, it will not be because of the war, but because Iraq's future generations will grow up in a society that has recovered from the devastation.

There is a reason war is the last resort: because it is never beneficial. It is always the least-worst option, an act of desperation. In order to achieve peace, it is necessary to seek alternatives to war, not to fantasize that war can right wrongs and create peace.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I am not familiar with that. Who takes on the responsibility of renting them?

UM, you expect us to believe that you never heard of Blackwater? If that's true, and you are that insulated from current events, it could explain a lot of your attitudes towards this war.

Terrorism exists because of stupid minds...
the mind ( peoples ) influenced on their life experience, parents, teachings, boundaries that were put by parents, friends..

There are various numbers for the Iraqi death toll so far. IBC has the lowest numbers, with less than 100,000 total up until 2007, while the lancet study(from last year), estimated around 650,000 civilian casualties, and is based on extrapolating survey data from across the country, as opposed to counting verified deaths, which are certainly less than the actual number.

It is verified, however, that at least 2.2 million Iraqis have fled the country and an additional 2.2 have been displaced within Iraq.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/iraq.deaths/
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...001442_pf.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...ck=1&cset=true

Do we assume that, had we not attacked Iraq, the Iraqi insurgency would have killed far more than 80,000 innocents? It is assumed that terrorists would have acquired a nuclear weapon, but in hindsight it's obvious that while we pursued the Iraq war, our nuclear non-proliferation efforts took a nosedive in North Korea and elsewhere. I still remember this story from last year:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/wo...ref=middleeast

The presence of nuclear arsenals in Pakistan and Israel are huge incentives for Arab nations to acquire their own nuclear arsenals, especially when Israel urges attacks on countries like Iraq or Iran, and actually bombs countries like Lebanon and Syria, whether or not their actions are justified. We think Israel is made safer by its nuclear stockpiles. Other Mid-East countries want the same protection.

Paul O'Neil, former Treasury Secretary for the Bush administration, revealed in a CBS interview that an attack on Iran was planned before 9/11. At the same time, Colin Powell was providing his analysis of Iraq's nuclear program: that it had nothing. He now says he was misled about Iraq's weapons programs, and there is little reason to disbelieve him.

The evidence provided by an Iraqi taxi-cab driver, known as Curveball, that attested to Iraq's nuclear capabilities was never validated, or even seriously questioned, before the war.

The war in Iraq did not prevent nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists, and it never will. Its only justification is to fight terrorists, killing tens, if not hundreds, of thousands, and for what? Al Qaeda has regrouped elsewhere, and even the Taliban has revived. An insurgency has developed where none existed before. Removing Saddam will be small comfort indeed if a regional war erupts and kills thousands more, or if terrorists do get their hands on one of Pakistan's nuclear weapons.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

UM, you expect us to believe that you never heard of Blackwater? If that's true, and you are that insulated from current events, it could explain a lot of your attitudes towards this war.

I already corrected that misconception. You just gave away the fact that you did not read the other things I said. That tendency could explain a lot of your attitude toward my posts.

You didn't correct it with any evidence. You make claims witohut backing them up, here we are listing the countries the United States has taken their freedom from to outline the hypocrisy of claiming they can export it around the world.

Explain to me why the United States reinstalled the Shah, please, I would like to know why the government that stands up for liberty, as you claim, would reinstall a dictatorship over a democratically elected leader. I know the real answer, to internationalize the oil fields, but let's see what bullshit reason you come up with.

Sandino nationalized their fruit companies, and got his ass disappeared by the United States and replaced by Contra death squads that gutted people in the streets. You make the bullshit claim he was in bed with the USSR which has 0 factual basis, you just think its true because you make the argument. And that argument is replayed again and again on this thread. You just make the claim this is the way it is, and it becomes true in your own head. There's evidence to support what we believe, where's yours?

And look at the retardedness of your claim as to why terrorism really exists. I'm sorry, but I don't think it's a good enough reason to kill yourself over being jealous of someone else.