Thread: Why Terrorism Exists

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.