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.

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 Omnius Deus

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

Then read what you wrote.

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.

Let me know when you are ready to stop lying.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

I love how the link your provided proves my point.

LinkS. You jumped in before I posted all of them. Which point? That the rationale might have been ill conceived, which I said might be the case, or that the U.S. rationale was not rooted in the Cold War nightmare? They do not prove the latter. And don't forget that the thing about the small countries' being part of the Soviet Union was not a claim I made. It was a result of your usual pulling phantom concepts out of your anal canal.

This is so stupid. I am pretty far past the point of taking my conversation with your strawman bizarrities and other lies seriously.

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 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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

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

What makes you so sure it is that and nothing else? Do you deny that the Hussein regime violated our ceasefire for 12 years? Do you deny that they were a terrorist government? Do you deny that they had used WMD's in a terrorist attack? Do you deny that they had a history of WMD programs? Do you deny that six governments and the United Nations gave us intelligence that the Hussein regime had stockpiles of WMD's (Consider that in light of everything else I said.)? NONE of that had anything to do with the decision to overthrow the regime? What makes you so sure?

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

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

Why? The roach motel is killing them like roaches, and the fact that they are engaging in terrorism proves that they had it in them in the first place. The more of them we kill, the better. People with that tendency have dangerous potential. We are killing them in Iraq as they make road side bombs and shoot rockets instead of waiting on them to come up with whatever excuse to be part of a major terrorist attack with WMD's or passenger airplanes or something later. I think it is a brilliant idea.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

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?

No, but it is some steps in that direction. They have a democratic system with some silly religious rules. The U.S. has some of those too, just not to as much of an extent.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

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?

Let's put it in the context of Sudan since they are the epitome of a country that could presently benefit by being liberated. We can liberate Sudan and stop the genocide taking place there by not trading with them, broadcasting television and radio shows there and showing them how free people live, using the internet (To do what?), and not letting Yahoo and others turn in the names of dissidents? That will do the trick? I don't get it.

I think that plan would do absolutely nothing but hurt the people economically even more and rub it in their faces that they are not free. How would we set up television and radio broadcasts there without invading? Who would stop the government from stopping the transmissions of the broadcasts? What would the people do with knowledge of how free people live, if they don't have that knowledge already? Why do you think that would get the job done?

Originally Posted by R.D.735

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.

Remember that we are talking about the unintentional killing of civilians in the crossfires. Under your position, war is never ever justifiable because civilians always get killed in the crossfire in wars. The citizen uprising you promoted involves it too.

How do you propose the Nazis should have been handled once they took over all of the countries of Europe they ended up ruling?

It does not make all wars unjust. The difference between the allied nations and the axis nations is that the allied nations did not initiate the war. They did not choose to take actions that would inevitably result in civilian deaths, they were forced to. The axis nations made the choice of taking innocent lives to enrich themselves.

Every goal the current war is supposed to attain makes it clear that it is a war of choice, and not one that was forced upon the US. Iraq never attacked the US, and it wasn't associated in any meaningful way with those who did, and the administration was well aware of that reality at the time. The US chose to invade Iraq because it was the fastest way to remove Saddam, not because it was the only way or because it was the least bloody.

A nation that fights a just war is one that fights it in defense and as a last resort. A nation that fights an unjust war is one that chooses to sacrifice innocents for its own goals, and a nation that initiates war is always in the wrong. The goals of the US may be just, but they are purely the goals of the US and not the goals of the people that are being sacrificed for that dream.

Oppressed people may revolt against their government justly. An oppressive government is always at war against its people, and they have the right to defend themselves. Civilians inevitably die in such conflicts, but it meets the criteria of a justly-fought war.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

It does not make all wars unjust. The difference between the allied nations and the axis nations is that the allied nations did not initiate the war. They did not choose to take actions that would inevitably result in civilian deaths, they were forced to. The axis nations made the choice of taking innocent lives to enrich themselves.

You said this...

Originally Posted by R.D.735

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.

Wouldn't that mean that the U.S. soldiers had no right to fight against the Nazis since it would kill civilians? The soldiers did not go to war to save just their own lives. They went to war to save the civilians of their country and the vast majority of the world.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Every goal the current war is supposed to attain makes it clear that it is a war of choice, and not one that was forced upon the US. Iraq never attacked the US, and it wasn't associated in any meaningful way with those who did, and the administration was well aware of that reality at the time. The US chose to invade Iraq because it was the fastest way to remove Saddam, not because it was the only way or because it was the least bloody.

Being a big enough threat is not enough justification? It is okay to fight wars (where civilians always die) in national self-defense, but not in an act of national preservation? That does not qualify as national self-defense? I highly disagree.

Also, this current war is a continuation of the 1991 war. We formed a conditional ceasefire, the Hussein regime violated the Hell out of it for 12 years, so we continued the war and proceeded to the overthrow, which we were considering in 1991 and formed a conditional ceasefire instead. The 1991 fighting was a defense of a country that could not defend itself but would have been justified in doing so.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

A nation that fights a just war is one that fights it in defense and as a last resort. A nation that fights an unjust war is one that chooses to sacrifice innocents for its own goals, and a nation that initiates war is always in the wrong. The goals of the US may be just, but they are purely the goals of the US and not the goals of the people that are being sacrificed for that dream.

"Always" is a very strong word. What if a country says, "Hand power over to us or we are going to invade you and carpet bomb your major cities."? Initiating violence against them would be unjust? Self protection is justifiable, even if it takes place before a threat is followed through. The Hussein regime was a huge threat, as I have explained. We could not allow them to continue to exist.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Oppressed people may revolt against their government justly. An oppressive government is always at war against its people, and they have the right to defend themselves. Civilians inevitably die in such conflicts, but it meets the criteria of a justly-fought war.

And even if outside help would make fewer of them die and greatly help or even guarantee their success, the outside help is always unjustifiable?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What makes you so sure it is that and nothing else? Do you deny that the Hussein regime violated our ceasefire for 12 years?

I don't think first Iraqi war shold have happened. There wouldn't have been a cease fire without the first war.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Do you deny that they were a terrorist government?

The way you use the word terrorist as sort an all-encompassing word for "anybody who doesn't like us", I'm not sure I can deny that, but I don't know of anything that Iraq ever did to us (once again, not saying he was a nice guy, but we don't go around invading every country who has a bad leader). After we didn't need Saddam anymore, and, in his mind, we betrayed him by attacking him, he didn't like us too much, but he wasn't very effective in actually carrying out any plans to hurt us. The 911 terrorists were Saudi and Egyptian. Saddam and bin Laden had no use for each other.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Do you deny that they had used WMD's in a terrorist attack?

Not on us.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Do you deny that they had a history of WMD programs? Do you deny that six governments and the United Nations gave us intelligence that the Hussein regime had stockpiles of WMD's (Consider that in light of everything else I said.)? NONE of that had anything to do with the decision to overthrow the regime? What makes you so sure?

There were a lot of people saying at the time that there were no WMD, and I don't believe that our government thought there really were--it was just an excuse. I did think that possibly our government knew that he had some weapons that we had given him when he was our ally against Iran, and that was what they were worried about, but didn't want to admit it. That didn't even turn out to be true, as far as I know. Also, we don't actually attack countries that really have WMD, right? Someone might get hurt!

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Why? The roach motel is killing them like roaches, and the fact that they are engaging in terrorism proves that they had it in them in the first place. The more of them we kill, the better. People with that tendency have dangerous potential. We are killing them in Iraq as they make road side bombs and shoot rockets instead of waiting on them to come up with whatever excuse to be part of a major terrorist attack with WMD's or passenger airplanes or something later. I think it is a brilliant idea.

So...we are helping the Iraqis by making their country a democracy, by turning it into a roach motel for terrorists. Those two things seem completely incompatible.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

No, but it is some steps in that direction. They have a democratic system with some silly religious rules. The U.S. has some of those too, just not to as much of an extent.

We have freedom of religion in this country (just not freedom from religion, the way it should be) so therefore I don't think we should support countries with millions of dollars in aid that don't also have freedom of religion, which the Israelis do not allow.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Let's put it in the context of Sudan since they are the epitome of a country that could presently benefit by being liberated. We can liberate Sudan and stop the genocide taking place there by not trading with them, broadcasting television and radio shows there and showing them how free people live, using the internet (To do what?), and not letting Yahoo and others turn in the names of dissidents? That will do the trick? I don't get it.

Well, sanctions hurt any country. I admit that broadcasts aren't going to help people who don't have radios, and even if they did have information, they probably don't have any way to use it, without weapons, etc. I don't know what should be done about Sudan; at the very least, the people in power should be cut off from the rest of the world economically. But the use of the internet is extremely useful to people in China, and without it we wouldn't have known nearly as much about what was going on in Burma--and when governments know people are watching, they are less likely to do extremely bad things.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I think that plan would do absolutely nothing but hurt the people economically even more and rub it in their faces that they are not free.

Yes, that's good! It needs to be rubbed in their faces that there are other ways of living, and that they don't have to put up with oppression. I'm with R.D.735--he said it well that the oppressed people are the ones who should make the decision to fight and sacrifice their lives--then if they ask for help, I'd be all for it. But we always seem to let the ones that are asking for help die on their own.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

How would we set up television and radio broadcasts there without invading? Who would stop the government from stopping the transmissions of the broadcasts? What would the people do with knowledge of how free people live, if they don't have that knowledge already? Why do you think that would get the job done?

Well, there's things called satellites that can be used to broadcast without invasion. Governments find it very hard to control information today. And what do you mean--what would they do with knowledge? I'm amazed that you say that, I can't believe you think that. Isn't there an old saying that would apply here?

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I don't think first Iraqi war shold have happened. There wouldn't have been a cease fire without the first war.

So the Hussein regime should have been allowed to keep Kuwait and own it themselves after brutally taking it over for purely selfish gain?

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

The way you use the word terrorist as sort an all-encompassing word for "anybody who doesn't like us", I'm not sure I can deny that, but I don't know of anything that Iraq ever did to us (once again, not saying he was a nice guy, but we don't go around invading every country who has a bad leader). After we didn't need Saddam anymore, and, in his mind, we betrayed him by attacking him, he didn't like us too much, but he wasn't very effective in actually carrying out any plans to hurt us. The 911 terrorists were Saudi and Egyptian. Saddam and bin Laden had no use for each other.

I am not sure where you got that definition of "terrorist". You definitely did not get it from me. I told you my definition a few posts ago, and it was far from what you just said. Most French and Canadians don't like us, but that does not make them terrorists. As I said, Hussein was worlds worse than merely being a "bad guy" or "not a nice guy". It was not just the man who was a problem. It was his government and his legacy too. They violated a ceasefire with us, and that was doing something to us. They attempted to assassinate Bush, Sr. That was doing something to us. They supported terrorist acts, engaged in WMD terrorism, and funded terrorist groups. They were a suicide bomber government with WMD programs and reported WMD stockpiles. We know that they did not fulfill the requirement of demonstrating the destruction of the WMD's we knew they had at one time, the ones we gave them when we allied with them against Iran, which was before they really went off the deep end and became a world threat. (Yes, the alliance was a mistake.) That was a major threat to us and the world because of their potential to get their WMD's into the hands of their terrorists and other terrorists. A threat to the world is our business. We wanted to stop them from doing something unthinkable to us. We did not want to wait for a sarin gas attack on Chicago or an anthrax stunt at Disney World.

So pay close attention this time. It is not about doing something to a government just for having a leader who is "not a nice guy". There was a long list of reasons to overthrow that terroristic, genocidal government that violated our ceasefire for 12 years and posed a major threat. Again, it was not merely that the leader was "not a nice guy". If that were the case, we would be taking over every fraternity house in the country.

Al Qaeda and the Hussein regime had a common bitter enemy. Therefore, they did have a use for each other. If the U.S. and the Soviet Union can ally, so can the Hussein regime and Al Qaeda. Vividly visualize that nightmare the next time you are lying awake in bed.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Not on us.

So we were supposed to wait until they actually did? If a man rapes a woman on a college campus, he is a threat to every woman on the campus. The Hussein regime showed what a threat they were. Take everything I said about what they did and think about it all at once. It is an incredibly dangerous picture.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

There were a lot of people saying at the time that there were no WMD, and I don't believe that our government thought there really were--it was just an excuse. I did think that possibly our government knew that he had some weapons that we had given him when he was our ally against Iran, and that was what they were worried about, but didn't want to admit it. That didn't even turn out to be true, as far as I know. Also, we don't actually attack countries that really have WMD, right? Someone might get hurt!

I don't know what would make them so sure, especially considering all of the intelligence we had that the regime did have the WMD's. Our intelligence came from five other governments plus our CIA, Senate, and Clinton Administration. That big picture is something to take very seriously. We also knew of their history of programs, including the nuclear program which had Israel destroying the factory. They had even used WMD's in a terrorist attack. They were a WMD terrorist government reported by many major sources to have stockpiles of WMD's and that had not complied with the ceasefire that required them to demonstrate the destruction of their earlier WMD's.

I said we should not invade nuclear countries unless we are dealing with a drastic enough situation. A bitter enemy suicide bomber government with WMD's is a drastic enough situation. The deterrent was not the same as it would be with China. The WMD's were not nuclear missiles that can be shot across the ocean to the U.S., which is what China has plenty of. China is also not a nut case suicide bomber government. See the difference?

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

So...we are helping the Iraqis by making their country a democracy, by turning it into a roach motel for terrorists. Those two things seem completely incompatible.

It is a temporary roach motel but a permanent democracy.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

We have freedom of religion in this country (just not freedom from religion, the way it should be) so therefore I don't think we should support countries with millions of dollars in aid that don't also have freedom of religion, which the Israelis do not allow.

There is a very large Muslim population in Israel. I have a relative who is a Christian missionary in Jerusalem. She has dedicated her life to openly trying to convert Israeli Jews to Christianity. There is big time freedom of religion in Israel.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Well, sanctions hurt any country. I admit that broadcasts aren't going to help people who don't have radios, and even if they did have information, they probably don't have any way to use it, without weapons, etc. I don't know what should be done about Sudan; at the very least, the people in power should be cut off from the rest of the world economically. But the use of the internet is extremely useful to people in China, and without it we wouldn't have known nearly as much about what was going on in Burma--and when governments know people are watching, they are less likely to do extremely bad things.

Yet the Chinese government still stands, despite the past rebellions by the citizens.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Yes, that's good! It needs to be rubbed in their faces that there are other ways of living, and that they don't have to put up with oppression. I'm with R.D.735--he said it well that the oppressed people are the ones who should make the decision to fight and sacrifice their lives--then if they ask for help, I'd be all for it. But we always seem to let the ones that are asking for help die on their own.

Lots of Sudanese people have asked for help. Of course they want a coalition to overthrow their genocidal government. Do you think any of the victims in that country are thinking, "I don't want other countries to save us."?

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Well, there's things called satellites that can be used to broadcast without invasion. Governments find it very hard to control information today. And what do you mean--what would they do with knowledge? I'm amazed that you say that, I can't believe you think that. Isn't there an old saying that would apply here?

Yes. What would they do with that knowledge? I know they would be more informed, but what would they do? It's not like they are going to overthow their government on their own, especially without war.

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.