Thread: Why Terrorism Exists

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 R.D.735

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.

Good post.

Back to the oil/war connection...

Can anyone remember the last time we went to war against a country that didn't have more oil than we do? It couldn't have been as far back as Viet Nam, could it? Or I'm forgetting something.

After US oil price controls in '81, the price dropped pretty steadily for the next seven years. In '88, the price was the lowest it had been in 15 years (under $20/barrel). Then the price began a steep climb upward for the next two years. When it hit $26, what happened? We launched the Gulf war.

This was followed by a few ups and downs, but it's interesting to note where it was at 9/11 and shortly afterward. On 9/11/01, the price was at about $25/barrel. We were in crisis, and went after Afghanastan looking for Bin Laden. Meanwhile, the price started to creep up again. In '03, the price was the highest it had been since '86, when it was dropping after the controls. With the price this high, what should we do? Well what we did was stop looking for Bin Laden, and get our priorities straight... invade Iraq! Who needs the greatest known terrorist in the world when we can go for a nice oil reserve?

This week the price of oil has just hit a new high, and guess what? We are on the verge of starting a new attack on Iran. Bush has his face pressed up against the oil candy store window, and is pointing to the flavor he wants and demanding someone get it for him.

Anyone still think we cared about Hussain's anti-humanitarian acts? You know, the one he's been carrying on for many, many years without our lifting a finger?

Originally Posted by skysaw

Back to the oil/war connection...

Can anyone remember the last time we went to war against a country that didn't have more oil than we do?

Was Somalia about oil? Eastern Europe? The Cold War battles in Central America?

If it were about oil, we would already own Canada. Are they next? Why are we making up excuses to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of the biggest oil spot in the world-- Saudi Arabia? Why not Kuwait, who would be a piece of cake? Why not the United Arab Emirates? It is because their governments are not terrorist enemies.

Originally Posted by skysaw

Anyone still think we cared about Hussain's anti-humanitarian acts? You know, the one he's been carrying on for many, many years without our lifting a finger?

Nobody is claiming the humanitarian concern could have stood alone as a basis for the war. I have said that many times in this thread. The war has been about a long list of things. Long term noncompliance with our ceasefire was a big one. 9/11 changed our foreign policy greatly (I hope are aren't one of the people who claims it was an inside job.). We even gave the Hussein regime many warnings, and he ignored them. Then we gave Hussein a chance to leave the country and avoid war, and he passed it up. Those all suggest that we were trying to avoid the need for war.

Very importantly, the only reason a war is happening right now is that there is a terrorist insurgency of nuts who don't want democracy in Iraq. They believe in oppressive totalitarianism and do not respect rights, and they are shooting at us and bombings us because we are protecting the new government which does. Without their violent aggression, we would have been gone long ago. We are just there as a force to counter the terrorists while the new government by the people gets strong enough to take care of itself. Iraq is not an American colony. The oil belongs to Iraq. It always will.

Universal Mind, I disagree with you on a lot of things.

Saddam would have been overthrown by the people of Iraq. There is no way it could last forever. If Hitler took over the world, he would have been overthrown. All dictatorships, no matter how terrible, can be defeated by its people.

The power of a government is derived from its people. When people unite and stop interacting with government, and realize that they are the ones giving there governments the power to oppress them, that government will fall very soon.

Saddam and his military couldn't have fought against millions of Iraqis. When such a massive movement took place, Saddam's soldiers probably would have turned against him.

Same thing would have happened to Hitler. Imagine, Billions of angry people versus Hitlers military. It would be bloody, but Hitler would have been overthrown.

You underestimate the power of the people. No government can exist unless the people allow it. When enough of the population realizes that, the people will take power. The United States doesn't need to go around liberating people.

Also, remember that the United States supports and trades with lots of dictatorships. Many dictatorships were supported by the US, until there people finally overthrew the United States' puppet in power. We only remove them when there puppet turns against them.

Originally Posted by Harrycombs

Universal Mind, I disagree with you on a lot of things.

Join the enormous club. What is the ratio now? I think it's like 20 against 1. But it's a fun game.

Originally Posted by Harrycombs

Saddam would have been overthrown by the people of Iraq. There is no way it could last forever. If Hitler took over the world, he would have been overthrown. All dictatorships, no matter how terrible, can be defeated by its people.

I don't see how that could have ever happened. They tried it, and they failed tragically. Considering the terrorism threat I have been talking about, we could not wait for that to happen, and I don't think it ever would have happened.

Originally Posted by Harrycombs

The power of a government is derived from its people. When people unite and stop interacting with government, and realize that they are the ones giving there governments the power to oppress them, that government will fall very soon.

So the unarmed, terrified out of their minds citizens of Iraq could have taken on the government, with all of its weapons, and won? That is definitely something we could not count on to happen any time in the near future.

Originally Posted by Harrycombs

Saddam and his military couldn't have fought against millions of Iraqis. When such a massive movement took place, Saddam's soldiers probably would have turned against him.

Under the Hussein regime, people were tortured and killed in front of their family members and their family members tortured and killed in front of them just for merely being suspected of being oppositional. How would millions of people have ever united in opposition under such circumstances? What would they have used for weapons to take on Saddam's military?

Originally Posted by Harrycombs

Same thing would have happened to Hitler. Imagine, Billions of angry people versus Hitlers military. It would be bloody, but Hitler would have been overthrown.

The militaries of the United States, Britain, and the Soviet Union came together with all of their weapons and training and had a very difficult time stopping Hitler, and that was when he had only taken over part of Europe. What force could have ever dared come together and take on the Nazis with even as much power as the Allied Forces? Once Hitler took over the entire world, it would have taken a Hell of a lot more than that. As with the Hussein regime, the Nazis tore up people suspected of opposition.

Originally Posted by Harrycombs

You underestimate the power of the people. No government can exist unless the people allow it. When enough of the population realizes that, the people will take power. The United States doesn't need to go around liberating people.

The citizens can't do it when the government is too oppressive. I also wish we had world Coalitions instead of relatively small U.S. led coalitions. When the whole world has been liberated, there will be no more wars.

Originally Posted by Harrycombs

Also, remember that the United States supports and trades with lots of dictatorships. Many dictatorships were supported by the US, until there people finally overthrew the United States' puppet in power. We only remove them when there puppet turns against them.

A lesser of evils has been chosen a lot in the past, but I think we have learned our lessons about installing less evil dictatorships. Now we are installing democracies.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

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.

IBC (Iraq Body Count) has this number:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Originally Posted by R.D.735

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.

Now there is no Saddam Hussein to kill them for doing that. Plus, they have a lot of hope of a good country to return to some day. With the Hussein regime in power, there would have been no such hope.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

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:

No, there would have been no insurgency. But there would have been a Hussein regime with no end in sight because of the evil legacies of his horrible sons and their heirs to power and so forth for the rest of humanity's time on Earth. Look at the numbers the Hussein regime killed during their short reign and then think about what it would have been like if they had remained in power for thousands of years or more. What would have ever ended their reign? And the Hussein kill statistics are of a short time that is before when they would have secretly gotten WMD's into the hands of the suicide bombers they supported or other terrorists with a common enemy, the United States.

http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2...27_saddam.html

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_r...ein's_Iraq

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/15/in.../15graves.html

Originally Posted by R.D.735

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.

Fundamentalist Muslim fanaticism is a huge incentive for suicide bombers to get their hands on nuclear weapons. That major aspect has nothing to do with protecting themselves. It has everthing to do with killing huge numbers of infidels like you and the people you love.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

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.

We got our intelligence on Iraq's WMD's from six governments and the United Nations. The Hussein regime supported suicide bombings and used WMD's in a terrorist attack. They were working on making more WMD's, and Israel had to bomb their nuclear facility to stop their nuclear weapons manufacturing at one point. They were a suicide bomber government that used and had a tendency to manufacture WMD's. They could not continue to exist under the 9/11 inspired Bush Doctrine, a necessary policy.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

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.

Our reasons for war went way beyond the words of some supposed cab driver.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

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.

The justifications go way beyond the killing of terrorists, and I have discussed those justifications many times here. The Hussein regime, a terrorist government that had used WMD's in a terrorist attack and that had worked on nuclear weapons and was a government with a ginantic amount of financial funding potential, no longer exists. That of course takes away major power potential for terrorists. The war has a long list of extremely important advantages. I will list them again if you would like me to.

I charge that YOU are the one repeating old motions, UM. I'm asking you to give me evidence of cold war ties, and you have not.

Let's compare what's most probably a motivation to go to war.

Some of the countries industries' were owned by international companies started in the United States, but when a new leader was elected (or in the case of Somalia took over) they decide in order to substantiate their economy and stop their people from being leeched on they'll nationalize these industries. This cuts these US companies out of the pie, then suddenly this leader gets attacked by the United States in some form or another and replaced by a dictator that kills, tortures and imprisons his own citizens and some how magically the nationalized industries belong in US hands again. (Of which I have provided factual evidence for)

Or, as you have yet to give me any evidence of, these underdeveloped countries are part of the USSR.

Now come on, what's more worth spending billions of dollars on military technology anyway? Keeping a country without a substantially developed military industry out of (poorly) alleged USSR hands, or making sure the money produced by their industries is continually funneled into US hands. Just think from a logical perspective, try to leave you ideology at the door for a second.

Furthermore I'm also waiting for you to give any evidence for terrorism other than as a reaction to upsets against their people. According to you, as far as I can tell and please correct me if this is a strawman, they read something about violence being justified against non-believers in their holy book and from their make the leap to deciding that they have to raise children from age twelve to die because Americans don't follow their religion.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

I charge that YOU are the one repeating old motions, UM. I'm asking you to give me evidence of cold war ties, and you have not.

Let's compare what's most probably a motivation to go to war.

Some of the countries industries were owned by international industries started in the United States, but when a new leader was elected (or in the case of Somalia took over) they decide in order to substantiate their economy and stop their people from being leeched on they'll nationalize these industries. This cuts these US cmpanies out of the pie, then suddenly this leader gets attacked by the United States in some form or another and replaced by a dictator that kills and imprisons his own citizens and some how magically the nationlized industries belong in US hands again.

Or, as you have yet to give me any evidence of, these underdeveloped countries are part of the USSR.

Now come on, what's more worth spending billions of dollars on military technology anyway? Keeping a country without a substantially developed military industry out of (poorly) alleged USSR hands, or making sure the money produced by their industries is continually funneled into US hands. Just think from a logical perspective, try to leave you ideology at the door for a second.

You asked for my explanation... AGAIN. I gave it to you. Now you want links... AGAIN. So I will here they are.... AGAIN.

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=1&gl=us

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache...nk&cd=20&gl=us

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=1&gl=us

http://www.bestcyrano.org/cyrano/?p=118

Like I said, they may have been misconceptions, but they were conceptions for reasons. The Iranian coup was rooted in British intelligence. And I never said the countries were part of the U.S.S.R. I said intelligence indicated that they had strong ties to them. We have been over this before.

Now take me up on my challenge and show me where I said jealousy is the only reason or even the main reason the Islamofascists want to kill us. Do you think you can do that?

Don't try to spin it like that, I just want real evidence for why you believe terrorism exists.

I love how the link your provided proves my point.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Now there is no Saddam Hussein to kill them for doing that. Plus, they have a lot of hope of a good country to return to some day. With the Hussein regime in power, there would have been no such hope.

You know UM, I was working with some Iraqi women right when the war was starting, and actually, unless you were against Saddam, their country wasn't that bad when he was in power--for them, and a lot of people like them, at least. It was a lot better than Saudia Arabia, that's for sure, and lots of other countries in the Middle East. I'm not saying Saddam was a good guy, I know he did horrible things, just that the majority of people in the country lived as normal lives as you can in that part of the world, and it's not that way anymore, and it won't be for a very long time, if ever. Bad things happened to their families (the women I worked with's) immediately after the invastion. My point is that just getting rid of Saddam doesn't transform it into a nice place to live--it probably never will be, and we screwed up a huge number of people's lives there. They had a society, with educated people. Anyone with any sense and money got out of there a long time ago. And I don't think that they have "a lot of hope". (Where do you get your optimistic information?) They may never go back. The foundations of their society have been destroyed. So if you are talking about the greater good, starting a war there did not accomplish it. It should have happened from inside. We owed them something, having made Saddam what he was during the Iran-Iraq war, but we didn't pay them back the right way.

Surely they will split that country into three parts, because they just can't get along without a dictator to control them. (Maybe we can find them another dictator, we do that pretty well.) I know you know that Iraq only exists as the country that it is because of English colonialism, so right there you've got problems. I've heard a little about them splitting into three, but I'm not up with the latest thinking on that.

UM, you always say this was to spread freedom and democracy, altho I don't think you deny that it was ultimately for oil, you just down-play that part. In that case, do you think we should invade every country that isn't democratic? Just the ones that have something we (our corporations, I should say) want? Maybe them first, then we'll get to the others later? There were countries with a lot, lot more suffering than was going on in Iraq, believe me. On the surface, their society was functional. Underneath, not so good--but the same could be said for this country.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

You know UM, I was working with some Iraqi women right when the war was starting, and actually, unless you were against Saddam, their country wasn't that bad when he was in power--for them, and a lot of people like them, at least. It was a lot better than Saudia Arabia, that's for sure, and lots of other countries in the Middle East. I'm not saying Saddam was a good guy, I know he did horrible things, just that the majority of people in the country lived as normal lives as you can in that part of the world, and it's not that way anymore, and it won't be for a very long time, if ever. Bad things happened to their families (the women I worked with's) immediately after the invastion. My point is that just getting rid of Saddam doesn't transform it into a nice place to live--it probably never will be, and we screwed up a huge number of people's lives there. They had a society, with educated people. Anyone with any sense and money got out of there a long time ago. And I don't think that they have "a lot of hope". (Where do you get your optimistic information?) They may never go back. The foundations of their society have been destroyed. So if you are talking about the greater good, starting a war there did not accomplish it. It should have happened from inside. We owed them something, having made Saddam what he was during the Iran-Iraq war, but we didn't pay them back the right way.

You must have talked to a few women who don't mind if they live under a genocidal terrorist government who used WMD's in a terrorist attack on thousands of their fellow innocent citizens and who had tons of mass graves and killed and tortured people in front of their family members and their family members in front of them just for merely being suspected of being oppositional. Do you know how women are seen and treated under governments like the Hussein regime? American feminists should be infuriated. Uday and Qusay would go around raping women of their choosings and then throwing them off balconies. If anybody in the family objected at all, the Hussein boys would mail body parts to those family members. The regime killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in their short reign. Would you mind living in a country like that? A regime that runs a country that way has no hope of being overthrown from the inside. That is why the attempts at that failed very tragically.

The women you are talking about remind me of abused women who have broken arms and teeth missing because they were knocked out who say, "Oh no, he really loves me. It is not so bad living with him, as long as you let him control the ever living Hell out of you."

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Surely they will split that country into three parts, because they just can't get along without a dictator to control them. (Maybe we can find them another dictator, we do that pretty well.) I know you know that Iraq only exists as the country that it is because of English colonialism, so right there you've got problems. I've heard a little about them splitting into three, but I'm not up with the latest thinking on that.

Splitting them into three is out of the question. It would result in three theocracies. Religion and government do not mix. The mixture is a recipe for severe oppression. Just the tiny bit of mixture of church and state in the U.S. has liberals going nuts. How do you feel about the illegality of gay marriage? It's really stupid and unfair, isn't it? Now imagine living in an all out theocracy. Theocracies are also very dangerous to the rest of the world.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

UM, you always say this was to spread freedom and democracy, altho I don't think you deny that it was ultimately for oil, you just down-play that part.

Oh, I don't? You have apparently missed tons of my posts. No, it is not ultimately about oil. It is about overthrowing an enemy terrorist government that violated our ceasefire for twelve years on terrorism grounds and therefore had to deal with the stated consequence-- overthrow (mission accomplished) as well as spreading democracy and killing terrorists in large numbers. With democracy comes prosperity and greatly increased civility, which results in a reduction of "kill myself to kill others" mentalities.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

In that case, do you think we should invade every country that isn't democratic? Just the ones that have something we (our corporations, I should say) want? Maybe them first, then we'll get to the others later? There were countries with a lot, lot more suffering than was going on in Iraq, believe me. On the surface, their society was functional. Underneath, not so good--but the same could be said for this country.

The war in Iraq was about a list of factors. The U.S. government's rationale was about the list and does not claim that any one thing on the list could stand alone as justification.

However, I have a different perspective from the government on that. I think the entire world should come together and liberate every country that has a dictator, except in the situations where the result would be nuclear war. Invading China would not be worth it. But I think Sudan should be liberated right away. It is the world's duty to liberate nations from totalitarian rule, especially where there is genocide.

To believe that people who live under dictatorships have no hope unless a foreign military liberates them is odd. To limit action to countries without nuclear arsenals is absurd.

The Middle East is awash in guns, bullets, and bombs, yet the oppressed people in many Middle Eastern countries don't rise in violent opposition to their governments. They are certainly capable of overthrowing their governments, just as America revolted against British rule. Perhaps they don't value freedom much. Or, more likely, they know that the chaos and destruction an insurrection would bring outweighs the benefits.

Limiting action to countries without nuclear weapons is a huge incentive for tyrannical governments to pursue nuclear weapons. Combine this idea with the idea that their motives for acquiring nuclear weapons are purely ideological and completely non-negotiable, and one has a set of axioms that guarantee violent conflict and reject peaceful alternatives.

Do we have it backwards? Encouraging the proliferation of nuclear weapons and inciting decades-long, bloody conflicts, are we not demonstrating to all oppressed people that Democracy brings chaos and destruction? Are we not ignoring the fact that our impact on terrorism has been to increase it?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Do you know how women are seen and treated under governments like the Hussein regime?

Saddam was secular and women had more rights there than they do in most Middle Eastern countries. Again I am not defending him, I know he did terrible things, but on the surface, for the majority of people, it was a better place to live than the other countries in the area.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

A regime that runs a country that way has no hope of being overthrown from the inside. That is why the attempts at that failed very tragically.

Well after the first Iraqi war, the Kurds thought that they would have our support, but we abandoned them. There are ways to help opposition groups without invading the country.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The women you are talking about remind me of abused women who have broken arms and teeth missing because they were knocked out who say, "Oh no, he really loves me. It is not so bad living with him, as long as you let him control the ever living Hell out of you."

No, these were professional women--I don't think you totally understand what that country was like. He was a bad guy, yes. There are lots of bad guys in charge of various countries. But that doesn't mean that every single person in the country is suffering, necessarily, and I think it is worse for the majority now than it was then.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Splitting them into three is out of the question. It would result in three theocracies. Religion and government do not mix.

Actually, in a lot of places they do, unfortunately; and they will for a very long time in that region, also unfortunately. We're not insisting on secular government over there--it wouldn't happen. They can't wait to vote their own fundamentalist oppressor in, as long as he's their kind of fundamentalist. Saddam was our kind, remember.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The mixture is a recipe for severe oppression. Just the tiny bit of mixture of church and state in the U.S.

I don't think it's tiny here. Less than some places, more than some others.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

How do you feel about the illegality of gay marriage? It's really stupid and unfair, isn't it?

Irrelevant, I don't think the goverment should be in the marriage contract business at all.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Now imagine living in an all out theocracy. Theocracies are also very dangerous to the rest of the world.

Yes, they totally suck--but we support them when necessary, and again, a theocracy is more likely now that Saddam is out of power.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Oh, I don't? You have apparently missed tons of my posts. No, it is not ultimately about oil. It is about overthrowing an enemy terrorist government that violated our ceasefire for twelve years on terrorism grounds and therefore had to deal with the stated consequence-- overthrow (mission accomplished) as well as spreading democracy and killing terrorists in large numbers. With democracy comes prosperity and greatly increased civility, which results in a reduction of "kill myself to kill others" mentalities.

I thought that you knew it was for oil. I think you are mistaken about the rest. I suppose we'll find out over the next few years.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

But I think Sudan should be liberated right away. It is the world's duty to liberate nations from totalitarian rule, especially where there is genocide.

We don't have enough military to do it all, obviously.

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.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

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?

Why do you ask those questions as if you have never been informed of the U.S. rationale? You did not even mention it. It's a little relevant to the conversation, wouldn't you say? We have been over this. Why do you want to go through the same motions again? I am really starting to think you are just here to troll. Are you?

Both were Cold War strategies because of alleged ties those governments had to the Soviet Union. We were fighting the most serious war in our history, the one to stop Soviet expansion, a threat that was extremely real and concerned something that would have ruined human life on Earth as the free world knew it. Those moves might have been extreme or bad moves. It looks in Hindsight like the Shah sucked and the Iranian revolution threw some monkey wrenches into the picture. It was also mainly a British move to install the Shah, and we went with their intelligence, perhaps too much. But now you know the rationale. Hold onto it this time.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

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.

Me either, not that Islamofascists are rational. Now go back and look at what I actually said are the primary reasonS. Where do you come up with this stuff?

That is about your fiftieth mischaracterization of my points made in the last month. Are you here to troll? Or do you just not at all care about honesty as long as you can be insulting? I challenge you to show me where I said that jealousy is the only reason Islamofascists want to die to kill us. You won't be able to do it. Jealousy is part of the reason, but there are many other reasons I have discussed. Fundamentalist brainwashing in a climate of poverty and despair is the number one reason. Now read this and face the fact that you lied once again...

http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=44733

A kind and loving dialogue will be the only way it will be solved with a genuine agenda of helping others and not self serving oil/money grubbing.

You can't solve terrorism by going in and blowing people's heads off as it has a habit of upseting their families who love them as we love our own families. Killing loved ones just creates more suicide bombers. The Iraq war has just created more terrorists of people who wouldn't have been terrorists before the action.

I really believe that Bush and Blair should be taken to court for war crimes as the whole thing has been and still is a sicking travesty and so many innocents have lost their lives through these two deranged killers orders. The huge amounts of lies over and over and deception they spun in order to do their dirty deeds was horrific.

People have to talk to each other and find out what it is that is the cause of the upsets amongst them and then come to some calm and reasoned middle ground that all can agree upon.

I really really hope that Bush is not allowed to fire a final salvo at Iran before he gets his ass kicked out of the whitehouse shortly. Why should Iran not be allowed nuclear technology and nuclear weapons for that matter - USA and Britain have millions of the things enough to blow up the planet several times over. Why are we superior? What qualifies us to have these dangerous nukes? Why would anyone feel safe that Bush has his hand on the trigger of the biggest stockpile of nukes in the world!? It smacks of double standards!

And less is needed of people saying their religion is right over another persons. We all need to remember that we are all people with families and loved ones and dreams, desires, aspirations and we all all worth the same as each other. The majority of people in all countries are very nice and wonderful people but unfortunately there are some unstable idiots in charge of governments that seem intent on blowing each other to pieces!

I think the next leader of the US should make a new law not allowing any of Bush's family or descendants to run for office of President ever again! Certainly don't want another Bush causing more war-mongering!

I would say that Bush is the world's biggest terrorist bin laden is small fry compared to Bush.

Originally Posted by Namaste

A kind and loving dialogue will be the only way it will be solved with a genuine agenda of helping others

We are not dealing with people who think like that. If you want to understand just how irrational the terrorist mind (specifically Al Qaeda) is, read the answer to Q2 of Bin Laden's letter to America.

http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=44733

I invite you to also read my other posts in this thread so you can understand another perspective on what the war is about.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We are not dealing with people who think like that. If you want to understand just how irrational the terrorist mind (specifically Al Qaeda) is, read the answer to Q2 of Bin Laden's letter to America.

http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=44733

I invite you to also read my other posts in this thread so you can understand another perspective on what the war is about.

A fairly wrong one. Why havent you ever answered or looked into the Sibel Edmonds case? She and at least a dozen other FBI agents and intelligence whistlblowers claim that the highest ranks in the FBI are aiding the terrorists through all sorts of criminal activity, including money laundering.

Youtube: FBI whistleblowers get silenced.