Thread: Why Terrorism Exists

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 R.D.735

To believe that people who live under dictatorships have no hope unless a foreign military liberates them is odd.

We removed the Hussein regime from power. Explain when you think the horribly oppressed population would have done it on their own. Imagine the number of civilian casualties in that unrealistic war.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

To limit action to countries without nuclear arsenals is absurd.

So invading China would be no crazier than invading Sudan? Have you really thought about what you just said? Remember that I was only talking about sole humanitarian ground regarding that. A U.N. invasion and liberation of Sudan to end oppression would be great. Doing that to China for the same sole reason would be the biggest disaster of all time and possibly lead to a quick end to life on Earth.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

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.

That's a good reason to not let those governments have nuclear weapons. But if we ever have a good enough reason to invade a nuclear country, we will. We just need a longer list than the fact that the country is a dictatorship.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

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?

We have not had a domestic terrorist attack since 9/11.

We are demonstrating that democracy brings the seeds of democracy, and we are not letting rotten countries like Iran have nuclear weapons. It sounds like maybe you agree that we should have that policy. We also took out the Hussein regime partly to make sure they never would have nuclear weapons. We know of periods in which they were working on them. Israel had to destroy one of their factories. Enemy suicide bomber governments working on having nuclear weapons are really severe problems when they exist, wouldn't you say?

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

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.

Some Hells are better than others.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

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.

We could have overthrown the Hussein regime without invading the country? I don't think so. We definitely could not establish democracy there without invading.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

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.

Not merely a "bad guy". A used car salesman who cons people out of their money is a bad guy. Hussein was one of the most evil people who ever lived.

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

We are now in the temporary transition period. The citizens can vote, which they do in higher percentages than even we do, despite the death threats for voting. There is much hope of a far better future. One less enemy suicide bomb government exists in the world.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

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.

The opposing religious views are going to keep the government from getting too theocratic. That will help keep adulterers and gays from getting executed like they are in theocratic countries like Iran.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

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

You know how I feel about any form of church and state mixture. I think it's dangerous even to have "In God We Trust" on coins. But our government is not forcing women to cover their entire bodies in public because the Koran says they are inferior or stoning gay people to death. We are much closer to the level of Holland or Canada than we are to the level of Iran or Taliban run (formerly) Afghanistan.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

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

Well, in a theocracy, they are way up in it. They are even too in it here because of a bit of religion in government policy. That is my relevant point.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

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

What he had was even worse than the typical theocracy.

Allying with a government does not mean we support its form of government. Rememer that we allied with the Soviet Union to stop the Nazis from taking over the world. But we were light years from agreeing with the Soviet form of government.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

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.

No, I do not assume it is about an oil conspiracy. Even if that is a motivation, the other reasons for the war are highly legitimate.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

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

As I said, the whole world should come together and do it.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We definitely could not establish democracy there without invading.

Still remains to be seen if can be done at all. My opinion is not.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Not merely a "bad guy". A used car salesman who cons people out of their money is a bad guy.

There are lots and lots of them; we don't go after nearly all of them. I'm sure I don't have to give examples of the many other evil dicatators, now and in the past, who we let slide.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The opposing religious views are going to keep the government from getting too theocratic.

What do you think they are fighting about over there now? Besides who eventually controls the oil producing regions, I mean. They don't work together like that, with each ones crazy religious ideas balancing out the others.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We are much closer to the level of Holland or Canada than we are to the level of Iran or Taliban run (formerly) Afghanistan.

Yes, of course. I think that could change (for the worse), but that is another argument.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What he had was even worse than the typical theocracy.

Like I said, that was not true, if the typical theocracy you are talking about is Saudia Arabia or Iran. There was a major segment of society living relatively undisturbed, secular lives. Yes, we should have done something about the other abuses--but in a different way; we ruined the whole country and destroyed a lot of lives.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Allying with a government does not mean we support its form of government. Rememer that we allied with the Soviet Union to stop the Nazis from taking over the world. But we were light years from agreeing with the Soviet form of government.

I'm not just talking about allying against a common enemy, I'm talking about major support. Isreal is a religious state; we support the hell out of them and their human rights abuses; Saudia Arabia, until they kicked us out, just like Bin Laden wanted; we saved Kuwait too, remember, and put their dictator's gold toilet back. (Yes, I know, they were saved from Saddam--who had been told that it was OK with us to go ahead and invade.)

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

As I said, the whole world should come together and do it.

In ways other than war, yes.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

There are lots and lots of them; we don't go after nearly all of them. I'm sure I don't have to give examples of the many other evil dicatators, now and in the past, who we let slide.

I keep saying this... The war in Iraq has been about many things, not any ONE thing alone. I was just saying Hussein was worse than merely a "bad guy" because of your point. I was not saying that alone is what the war has been about. The war has been about MANY things.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

What do you think they are fighting about over there now? Besides who eventually controls the oil producing regions, I mean. They don't work together like that, with each ones crazy religious ideas balancing out the others.

The ability of the Iraqi government to stand on its own. Democracy has the counterterrorism benefits I have described many times. We are also stopping governments like those of Iran and Syria from moving in and taking over and having more power. Plus, we have set up a roach motel for people who have it in them to be Islamofascist terrorists.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Like I said, that was not true, if the typical theocracy you are talking about is Saudia Arabia or Iran. There was a major segment of society living relatively undisturbed, secular lives. Yes, we should have done something about the other abuses--but in a different way; we ruined the whole country and destroyed a lot of lives.

Did you read the links? People were terrified of breathing the wrong way. Some of the citizens had abused wife/Stockholm Syndrome and will not accept how terrible things actually were, but the country was an absolute nightmare. Now we have planted the seed of democracy and are in the transition phase.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I'm not just talking about allying against a common enemy, I'm talking about major support. Isreal is a religious state; we support the hell out of them and their human rights abuses; Saudia Arabia, until they kicked us out, just like Bin Laden wanted; we saved Kuwait too, remember, and put their dictator's gold toilet back. (Yes, I know, they were saved from Saddam--who had been told that it was OK with us to go ahead and invade.)

Israel is a democracy, not a theocracy. That is why we support them. We don't support the government form of any of the other countries you named. We just trade with them. That is not the same as pushing for a form of government. We gave Kuwait back to the better and rightful government after taking it away from the awful regime that took over Kuwait. We were not there to set up democracy. We were there to very quickly undo the take over by a far worse government who had no right to take them over.

We never told Hussein it was okay to take over Kuwait.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

In ways other than war, yes.

Like what?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The war has been about MANY things.

I don't agree--one thing; oil.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

. Plus, we have set up a roach motel for people who have it in them to be Islamofascist terrorists.

You believe that? That's like saying I'll protect my house from burning down by setting a fire in the woods.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

. Now we have planted the seed of democracy and are in the transition phase.

That's your opinion. I guess time will tell.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Israel is a democracy, not a theocracy.

They have rule about where people can live, where they can work, and who they can marry based on religion. Is that not a theocracy?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We never told Hussein it was okay to take over Kuwait.

Yes we did; I'll give it to you later (getting to my bed-time.)

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Like what?

Oh, how about a little not trading with them? If all of the free world did it together, they would feel it. How about radio and TV broadcasts, letting them see how free people live? How about the internet, and not letting companies like Yahoo turn in the names of dissidents to their governments, like in China?

From Universal Mind
Yes, that is all that can be done, unless we can secretly get to their nuclear weapons or prevent them from using them on us some other way. It would take an incredibly drastic situation for us to go to war with a nuclear country. It would have to be something like a situation where a country announces that they are in fact going to nuke us.

Here is a case where preventing death takes precedence over promoting freedom. I'm guessing the entire disagreement lies in the degree to which innocent lives can be sacrificed for the greater good.

My position on this matter is that the only life we have the right to sacrifice is our own. We have no right to decide that it is just to kill one group of innocents to save another, because we cannot judge the value of an innocent life. Those who initiate wars make the choice of sacrificing innocents to serve others, and are in the wrong.

It would be so easy to launch wars and topple the world's dictators, but to do so assumes that we have the authority to sacrifice those who may not be willing to die for our cause.

If an oppressed people wants to topple their tyrannical government, we should by all means support them, because they are the only ones with the right to sacrifice their lives for that cause. We can't make that choice for them.

From Universal Mind
We are demonstrating that democracy brings the seeds of democracy, and we are not letting rotten countries like Iran have nuclear weapons. It sounds like maybe you agree that we should have that policy. We also took out the Hussein regime partly to make sure they never would have nuclear weapons. We know of periods in which they were working on them. Israel had to destroy one of their factories. Enemy suicide bomber governments working on having nuclear weapons are really severe problems when they exist, wouldn't you say?

It's a grave problem, which is why I disagree with encouraging such activities. When we declare that we will destroy all tyrannical governments that don't have a nuclear weapon yet, we run the risk of starting a nuclear arms race. This makes the problem worse, not better, and I'm against it. It also seems to kill innocent people and strengthen terrorist organizations.

From Universal Mind
That's a good reason to not let those governments have nuclear weapons. But if we ever have a good enough reason to invade a nuclear country, we will. We just need a longer list than the fact that the country is a dictatorship.

What do you propose be done about nuclear-armed dictatorships? Negotiation? Diplomacy?

Originally Posted by R.D.735

It's a grave problem, which is why I disagree with encouraging such activities. When we declare that we will destroy all tyrannical governments that don't have a nuclear weapon yet, we run the risk of starting a nuclear arms race. This makes the problem worse, not better, and I'm against it. It also seems to kill innocent people and strengthen terrorist organizations.

The tyrranical governments that are the most obsessed with getting nuclear weapons could not be encouraged any more than they already are. They just have to go. The U.S. government disagrees, but I think the world community should overthrow all dictatorships in a hurry and never give them the chance to get nuclear weapons.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

What do you propose be done about nuclear-armed dictatorships? Negotiation? Diplomacy?

Yes, that is all that can be done, unless we can secretly get to their nuclear weapons or prevent them from using them on us some other way. It would take an incredibly drastic situation for us to go to war with a nuclear country. It would have to be something like a situation where a country announces that they are in fact going to nuke us.