Thread: Why Terrorism Exists

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.

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 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 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?