Thread: Why Terrorism Exists

Back to the oil/war connection...

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by skysaw

Back to the oil/war connection...

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

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

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

Originally Posted by skysaw

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Harrycombs

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

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

Originally Posted by Harrycombs

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

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

Originally Posted by Harrycombs

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

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

Originally Posted by Harrycombs

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

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

Originally Posted by Harrycombs

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

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

Originally Posted by Harrycombs

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

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

Originally Posted by Harrycombs

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

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

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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

I was around then, so I remember. This transcript is easily found on the internet.

Transcript of Meeting Between Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie. - July 25, 1990 (Eight days before the August 2, 1990 Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait)

July 25, 1990 - Presidential Palace - Baghdad

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - I have direct instructions from President Bush to improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with Kuwait. (pause) As you know, I lived here for years and admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. We know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. (pause) We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threat s against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship - not confrontation - regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's borders?

Saddam Hussein - As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death.

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - What solutions would be acceptable?

Saddam Hussein - If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (i.e., in Saddam s view, including Kuwait ) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this?

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles)

On August 2, 1990 four days later, Saddam's massed troops invade and occupy Kuwait. _____

Baghdad, September 2, 1990, U.S. Embassy

One month later, British journalists obtain the the above tape and transcript of the Saddam - Glaspie meeting of July 29, 1990. Astoun ded, they confront Ms. Glaspie as she leaves the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

Journalist 1 - Are the transcripts (holding them up) correct, Madam Ambassador?(Ambassador Glaspie does not respond)

Journalist 2 - You knew Saddam was going to invade (Kuwait ) but you didn't warn him not to. You didn't tell him America would defend Kuwait. You told him the opposite - that America was not associated with Kuwait.

Journalist 1 - You encouraged this aggression - his invasi on. What were you thinking?

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait.
�
Journalist 1 - You thought he was just going to take some of it? But, how could you? Saddam told you that, if negotiations failed , he would give up his Iran (Shatt al Arab waterway) goal for the Whole of Iraq, in the shape we wish it to be. You know that includes Kuwait, which the Iraqis have always viewed as an historic part of their country!

Journalist 1 - American green-lighted the invasion. At a minimum, you admit signaling Saddam that some aggression was okay - that the U.S. would not oppose a grab of the al-Rumeilah oil field, the disputed border strip and the Gulf Islands (including Bubiyan) - the territories claimed by Iraq?

(Ambassador Glaspie says nothing as a limousine door closed behind her and the car drives off.)

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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

More history lessons: After the Iraq-Iran war, the US loaned Iraq a lot of money. At the same time, Kuwait, another country created by the English in colonial times, and which Iraq still needed for their ports, was illegally drilling oil in the border region between the two countries, which they had agreed by treaty not to. To pay the bills, Iraq needed the oil. He asked and got permission from the US to invade Kuwait. We "allow" wars all the time, if you haven't noticed.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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.

There is no Hussein regime anymore. I think the best way to avoid terrorist attacks is to quit compounding mistake after mistake in foreign policy (mistakes as far as peace go, but not as far as the wealth of our corporations go). Honestly, it's not something that worries me as much as it does you. I think they are very ineffective, and in fact, the least possible effort is being done, and they haven't been able to do anything for years. If we were serious, our airlines would be run like Isreal's, we wouldn't be searching Al Gore and little old ladies so we don't offend people, and interrogating me about make-up while meanwhile I've got a multi-tool knife in my purse. They got very lucky the first time (I'm not counting the attacks of military targets not in our country--those will always be targets, and should be removed.)

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

They had even used WMD's in a terrorist attack.

You mean when they gassed the Kurds, after we encouraged them to rebel and promised to support them, then abandoned them?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It is a temporary roach motel but a permanent democracy.

Oh, OK, glad you explained that, now it makes sense. That should work.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

There is big time freedom of religion in Israel.

Unless you're Palestinian.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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

But how many American have died there so far? It may change yet, no one can predict the future, but meanwhile we're not fighting them--just borrowing lots of money from them to pay for the war.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Lots of Sudanese people have asked for help. Of course they want a coalition to overthrow their genocidal government.

So, since we don't fight just for oil, why aren't we over there helping them too?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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.

Why not? Populations do occasionally overthrow their governments, you know.

Universal Mind, a government always derives its power from the people. The problem is that there are guards of the system. In other words, the middle class who benefits from the dictatorship. But there in the same boat as the lower class, the government doesn't really care about them. If they see people being murdered and tortured, your right, they will be afraid. But when they understand that there not safe from the regime, then they would have joined with the lower class. The middle class always joins with the lower class eventually, because the middle class starts getting oppressed like the lower class because of the greed/fear of the regime of being overthrown.

Then, when the guards of the system stop working for Saddam, they will easily overthrow him. Without people to command, he would have no power. His weapons would be useless. He would be broke. No one would be afraid of him anymore, because the regime would have no way to enforce its laws and stop a revolution. Then after everyone had worked together to overthrow a common foe, then there might be some sense of unity among the people of Iraq.

The same would have happened to Hitler. The people of a country are far more dangerous than any army. The power of a government is derived from its people. When the people are fed up with a government, and realize that they have the power to overthrow it, they will always win. You can never defeat a determined population.

The United States screwed things up terribly by invading. The United States should have helped the people of Iraq to overthrow the regime, instead of us doing it for them.

The war was for oil in my opinion, not to help Iraqis. If we really cared about them, then we would have been helping people all over the world who had things much worse. But we don't help them because we won't make money by doing it.

QUOTE]From Universal Mind
When the whole world has been liberated, there will be no more wars.[/QUOTE]

Would I be wrong in guessing that this is the fuel for every rationalization of the Iraq War? We shouldn't let idealism blind us to the harm our actions cause or alternatives to them.

From Universal Mind
When the whole world has been liberated, there will be no more wars.

...Heh. Right. Just like how here, in America - a "free" society - there is no strife. There is no conflict. There is no murder, no rape, no kidnapping. There is no gang activity; no organized crime. Our freedoms have brought us a completely harmonious sense of unity, as a people. There is no sense of oppression. There is no rebellion against "authority." There is no religious arrogance. No aggression in the name of idealism. There is no ethnocentrism. There is no poverty-induced angst. There is no classism. No racism. No prejudice. There is no envy. No wrath. No militias. No extremists. No fundamentalists. There is no ignorance. No protectionism. No primitivism. No ignorance.

Right?

[/sarcasm]

Sorry, UM (but it was appropriate). Despite how many of the reasons for your point of view that I can actually, somewhat, take into consideration, the concept of a "liberated world meaning a world without conflict/war" is just a fairy-tale. Conflict is just as much a part of a free society as it is with any other division of the idealogical spectrum. Basically, what you're saying is that we, as a country, should spend the next hundred years invading every non-democratic nation on Earth, spreading "peace by way of the sword", with nothing but the assumption that such a genocidal campaign would bring about a global peace. Even if that is not your "verbatim" decree, it is the gist (my interpretation) of such a statement, and its proposed outcome (while ideal and attractive) is completely unrealistic.

Remember: Even right now, we are not at war with a government. We are at war with an ideology. We are at war with "peasants" that have access to weaponry (which anybody with goods or services of any sort of value, no matter their government affiliation or loyalty, has). This entire world could be one huge America, for all that it matters, but if the ideology exists (which you will much more quickly fuel, by fighting it with violence, than stamp out) the threat exists. "Freedom" in the governmental sense, does not simply make it disappear.

Wow. The line has only four people in it tonight. Where is everybody?

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I was around then, so I remember. This transcript is easily found on the internet.

Yes, that particular transcript. But guess what. The other side claims that it is an Iraqi transcript used as an instrument of disinformation. April Glaspie denies tooth and nail that she gave the Hussein regime a green light to invade Kuwait.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...pagewanted=all

I find it hard to swallow that the U.S. would give the okay on invading Kuwait in such a way that when the ambassador could be quoted on what she says and then go to war with the Hussein regime over it. Is/was there an audio tape of the conversation? If not, then Glaspie would have seen that somebody was writing down what she said. I'm not buying it.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

More history lessons: After the Iraq-Iran war, the US loaned Iraq a lot of money. At the same time, Kuwait, another country created by the English in colonial times, and which Iraq still needed for their ports, was illegally drilling oil in the border region between the two countries, which they had agreed by treaty not to. To pay the bills, Iraq needed the oil. He asked and got permission from the US to invade Kuwait. We "allow" wars all the time, if you haven't noticed.

If Kuwait owed Iraq money, it did not justify a take over of Kuwait.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

There is no Hussein regime anymore. I think the best way to avoid terrorist attacks is to quit compounding mistake after mistake in foreign policy (mistakes as far as peace go, but not as far as the wealth of our corporations go). Honestly, it's not something that worries me as much as it does you. I think they are very ineffective, and in fact, the least possible effort is being done, and they haven't been able to do anything for years. If we were serious, our airlines would be run like Isreal's, we wouldn't be searching Al Gore and little old ladies so we don't offend people, and interrogating me about make-up while meanwhile I've got a multi-tool knife in my purse. They got very lucky the first time (I'm not counting the attacks of military targets not in our country--those will always be targets, and should be removed.)

I still don't understand why your purse was not put through the metal detector and the scanner. But any way, I know the Hussein regime is not in power any more. Isn't that great? We are not there because we think the Hussein regime is still there. We are there for the reasons I have discussed many times.

Are you saying that only Arabs should be searched at airports?

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

You mean when they gassed the Kurds, after we encouraged them to rebel and promised to support them, then abandoned them?

Yes, it was a WMD terrorist attack. You apparently are not denying that. You instead seem to be suggesting that we should have fought the Hussein regime then, if your point is a complaint (an off topic one).

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Oh, OK, glad you explained that, now it makes sense. That should work.

Attracting terrorists and killing them: working

The running of a democratic system where citizens vote even in higher percentages than Americans, despite death threats for voting: working

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Unless you're Palestinian.

Palestinians can move to Israel and have freedom of religion. They just can't have freedom of theocratic take over.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

But how many American have died there so far? It may change yet, no one can predict the future, but meanwhile we're not fighting them--just borrowing lots of money from them to pay for the war.

I don't see how that is on topic. My point was that the citizens have not been able to overthrow the Chinese government. They get swatted like flies when they try.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

So, since we don't fight just for oil, why aren't we over there helping them too?

Humanitarianism in a single country has never been a compelling enough reason for our government to engage in war. War is serious stuff. We cannot afford to liberate every country in the world. The war in Iraq, for example, has been about many major things. The humanitarian state of Iraq was not compelling enough alone. That is the government perspective. But as I said, it is a compelling enough reason for me, as long as we have a lot of help.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Why not? Populations do occasionally overthrow their governments, you know.

Watch it not happen, unfortunately.

Originally Posted by Harrycombs

Then, when the guards of the system stop working for Saddam, they will easily overthrow him.

I don't agree that the guards are the middle class itself. The guards are people who love the power a regime gives them through powerful membership in the regime and the lower members who work out of fear. The millions of people you are saying could overthrow the government would never assemble. The vast majority would always prefer to stay safe by not being oppositional. We had millions of Americans fighting in WWII. We had even more fighting for the Soviet Union, and Britain has a ton of them too. Our militaries were very well organized and very well armed and trained. Yet it was STILL a major bitch taking down the Nazis. And like I said, that was when the Nazis had only taken over part of Europe. A Nazi world would have always stayed a Nazi world.

More importantly, we could not afford to wait on some unrealistic overthrow of the Hussein regime from the Iraqi people.

Originally Posted by Harrycombs

The war was for oil in my opinion, not to help Iraqis. If we really cared about them, then we would have been helping people all over the world who had things much worse. But we don't help them because we won't make money by doing it.

We can't afford to do that everywhere. I have discussed that many times in this thread. The war in Iraq has not been all about humanitarianism for the Iraqis. That is not even the number one reason. Review the thread for the many other reasons I have stated.

Originally Posted by Harrycombs

The United States should have helped the people of Iraq to overthrow the regime, instead of us doing it for them.

If civilian casualties are your concern, that would have been a horrible mistake.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

...Heh. Right. Just like how here, in America - a "free" society - there is no strife. There is no conflict. There is no murder, no rape, no kidnapping. There is no gang activity; no organized crime. Our freedoms have brought us a completely harmonious sense of unity, as a people. There is no sense of oppression. There is no rebellion against "authority." There is no religious arrogance. No aggression in the name of idealism. There is no ethnocentrism. There is no poverty-induced angst. There is no classism. No racism. No prejudice. There is no envy. No wrath. No militias. No extremists. No fundamentalists. There is no ignorance. No protectionism. No primitivism. No ignorance.

Right?

[/sarcasm]

Sorry, UM (but it was appropriate). Despite how many of the reasons for your point of view that I can actually, somewhat, take into consideration, the concept of a "liberated world meaning a world without conflict/war" is just a fairy-tale. Conflict is just as much a part of a free society as it is with any other division of the idealogical spectrum. Basically, what you're saying is that we, as a country, should spend the next hundred years invading every non-democratic nation on Earth, spreading "peace by way of the sword", with nothing but the assumption that such a genocidal campaign would bring about a global peace. Even if that is not your "verbatim" decree, it is the gist (my interpretation) of such a statement, and its proposed outcome (while ideal and attractive) is completely unrealistic.

Remember: Even right now, we are not at war with a government. We are at war with an ideology. We are at war with "peasants" that have access to weaponry (which anybody with goods or services of any sort of value, no matter their government affiliation or loyalty, has). This entire world could be one huge America, for all that it matters, but if the ideology exists (which you will much more quickly fuel, by fighting it with violence, than stamp out) the threat exists. "Freedom" in the governmental sense, does not simply make it disappear.

I quoted your entire post just so you will see how much unnecessary stuff one will sometimes say when he is arguing with a point that was not made. Read carefully...

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

When the whole world has been liberated, there will be no more wars.

I said there will be no more wars. I did not say there will be no more domestic conflicts or other problems.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I quoted your entire post just so you will see how much unnecessary stuff one will sometimes say when he is arguing with a point that was not made. Read carefully...

I said there will be no more wars. I did not say there will be no more domestic conflicts or other problems.

Wow. I guess someone should take a minute to look up the definition of "war" then. Obviously you were making a point that you were unaware you were making.

the waging of armed conflict against an enemy; "thousands of people were killed in the war"

[*] To wage or carry on warfare.[*] To be in a state of hostility or rivalry; contend.

War is a state of prolonged violent, large-scale conflict involving two or more groups of people. Wars may be prosecuted simultaneously in one or more different theaters. Within each theater, there may be one or more consecutive military campaigns. Individual actions of war within a specific campaign are traditionally called battles, although this terminology is not always applied to contentions involving aircraft, missiles or bombs alone in the absence of ground troops or naval forces.
The factors leading to war are often complicated and due to a range of issues. Where disputes arise over issues such as territory, sovereignty, resource, or ideology, and if a peaceable resolution fails, is not sought, or is thwarted, war often results. In War Before Civilization, Lawrence H. Keeley, a professor at the University of Illinois, calculates that approximately 90-95% of known societies engaged in at least occasional warfare, and many fought constantly.[1][2][3][4]
A war may begin following an official declaration of war in the case of international war, although this has not always been observed either historically or currently, nor in the case of civil wars. A declaration of war is not normally made in internal wars.

....Which definition of "war" were you actually talking about, U.M.? They look pretty similar to me.

How about the Civil War? was that the sort of domestic conflict that you were implying "doesn't count?"

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Wow. The line has only four people in it tonight. Where is everybody? [

Friday nights are always slow around here.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Yes, that particular transcript. But guess what. The other side claims that it is an Iraqi transcript used as an instrument of disinformation. April Glaspie denies tooth and nail that she gave the Hussein regime a green light to invade Kuwait.

Well of course they lied about it afterwards.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Is/was there an audio tape of the conversation? If not, then Glaspie would have seen that somebody was writing down what she said. I'm not buying it.

Look into up yourself, I can't prove it to you.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If Kuwait owed Iraq money, it did not justify a take over of Kuwait.

You didn't read what I said. Iraq owed us money; we were the only ones who would lend them any.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I still don't understand why your purse was not put through the metal detector and the scanner.

They did put it thru the scanner, of course, but the knife was in a side pocket and they just didn't see it. I always wonder why they let me get away with cans of sardines too; that seems like a much better weapon on a plane than lip gloss. (I just don't get it; what the hell are they doing? It's surreal.)

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Are you saying that only Arabs should be searched at airports?

No, but I have seen old ladies searched when there was a much more dangerous looking guy right next to her in line. They don't do it anymore, but when this all first started they would pick people "at random" to search, and invariably it was somebody who looked like they wouldn't cause any trouble. I learned how to beat it instantly--just don't be in front, because they sure don't want to delay the plane or anything. Last in line to board, sure not to get searched. Then they went to a thing on your ticket *S* that showed that you were going to get searched. Well, if I was a terrorist, and I saw that on my ticket, I guess I'd skip that flight. Now they supposedly have the extra detection things, which recently let 50% of bombs thru when tested. They're just not serious, or they're very stupid.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Yes, it was a WMD terrorist attack. You apparently are not denying that. You instead seem to be suggesting that we should have fought the Hussein regime then, if your point is a complaint (an off topic one).

Oh, it's not really that off topic, is it? I thought it sucked when they left them all to die, yes.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Attracting terrorists and killing them: working

You're deluded.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The running of a democratic system where citizens vote even in higher percentages than Americans, despite death threats for voting: working

Yea, let's see how that works out.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Palestinians can move to Israel and have freedom of religion. They just can't have freedom of theocratic take over.

Oh, OK. Or freedom to travel, or work, or live in a decent place either.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Humanitarianism in a single country has never been a compelling enough reason for our government to engage in war. War is serious stuff. We cannot afford to liberate every country in the world. The war in Iraq, for example, has been about many major things. The humanitarian state of Iraq was not compelling enough alone. That is the government perspective. But as I said, it is a compelling enough reason for me, as long as we have a lot of help.

Well we don't have lots of help, if you haven't noticed. I thought you wanted to free the whole world.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Wow. I guess someone should take a minute to look up the definition of "war" then. Obviously you were making a point that you were unaware you were making.

...Which definition of "war" were you actually talking about, U.M.? They look pretty similar to me.

How about the Civil War? was that the sort of domestic conflict that you were implying "doesn't count?"

The one involving rival militaries and the term "large scale". I was not talking about conflicts between treehouse forts. I also did not use the word "wars" to mean "(mere) lack of unity", "prejudice", "ethnocentrism", or "rape" or most of the other terms you threw in there.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Well of course they lied about it afterwards.

You automatically trust what the Hussein regime reported?

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

You didn't read what I said. Iraq owed us money; we were the only ones who would lend them any.

You also said Kuwait was illegally drilling for oil in the border region. So to get money, we told the Hussein regime they could take over Kuwait and own their oil. But then we spent a fortune on driving them out of Kuwait. Is that it? What a bizarre plan that would be.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

They did put it thru the scanner, of course, but the knife was in a side pocket and they just didn't see it. I always wonder why they let me get away with cans of sardines too; that seems like a much better weapon on a plane than lip gloss. (I just don't get it; what the hell are they doing? It's surreal.)

Then they really screwed up and did not do what they were supposed to do.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

No, but I have seen old ladies searched when there was a much more dangerous looking guy right next to her in line. They don't do it anymore, but when this all first started they would pick people "at random" to search, and invariably it was somebody who looked like they wouldn't cause any trouble. I learned how to beat it instantly--just don't be in front, because they sure don't want to delay the plane or anything. Last in line to board, sure not to get searched. Then they went to a thing on your ticket *S* that showed that you were going to get searched. Well, if I was a terrorist, and I saw that on my ticket, I guess I'd skip that flight. Now they supposedly have the extra detection things, which recently let 50% of bombs thru when tested. They're just not serious, or they're very stupid.

Yeah, I'm not too sure about the airport search techniques. They go too far on some things and too short on others.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Oh, it's not really that off topic, is it? I thought it sucked when they left them all to die, yes.

Yes. How does your suggestion that we should have fought the Hussein regime then (but not later ) counter the point I was making?

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

You're deluded.

Wow, that's a pretty effective counterargument. Very analytical. Is it my turn? Okay, you're a booty-head. Cool.

So which are we not doing? Are we not attracting terrorists to the region, or are we not killing them when they get there? Or is it both?

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Yea, let's see how that works out.

It has already been happening.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Oh, OK. Or freedom to travel, or work, or live in a decent place either.

Huh? So they are forced to stay in substandard homes and collect welfare? Or are they forced to hunt for food in their government yards? What are you saying?

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Well we don't have lots of help, if you haven't noticed. I thought you wanted to free the whole world.

I have said several times that we cannot do that alone.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The one involving rival militaries and the term "large scale". I was not talking about conflicts between treehouse forts. I also did not use the word "wars" to mean "(mere) lack of unity", "prejudice", "ethnocentrism", or "rape" or most of the other terms you threw in there.

Yeah. I didn't think I had to specify that the words I was using were meant to illustrate the things that can lead to large-scale war. The Civil War (also) was not a war between treehouse forts. "Rival military" means nothing more than "rival militias," at a fundamental level. Are you trying to imply that, if every nation in this world had democracy, there would not exist militias and/or "militaries" that could/would propose what you're referring to as a "large scale" war? I think you're wrong.

"War" can be started for any number of idiotic things, as long as there is a big enough following to present some sort of large-scale conflict. I'm still not quite sure what you're trying to say, with this one. Think about the war we are fighting now. Is this not a small (on a global scale) faction of people versus a wide-spread ideology of anti-Islamic-extremism? On what scale are you talking that "war" is supposed to just "not exist," in a "liberated world?" Please explain that to me. As far as I see it; as long as the concepts that I mentioned (and more) exist, the basic components for war exist, given a large-enough base. So enlighten me on how even a world-wide democracy is supposed to eliminate "war" (even by your definition. I'm talking about large-scale war, here, as I have been). How does liberation, automatically, cancel out the possibility of war?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You automatically trust what the Hussein regime reported?

The transcript is widely published; the truth of it is actually occurring is not in question as far as I know. It wasn't denied; it was just spun later that she totally screwed up.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You also said Kuwait was illegally drilling for oil in the border region. So to get money, we told the Hussein regime they could take over Kuwait and own their oil. But then we spent a fortune on driving them out of Kuwait. Is that it? What a bizarre plan that would be.

Who knows? Some people think it was a sting operation; Saddam was set up to invade Kuwait just so we could get rid of him, since we were done with him. You refuse to admit this, but at one time, Saddam was looked at very favorably; he modernized his society, got rid of Islamic law, freed women, got people educated, etc. I don't know if the whole time he was doing horrible things to his enemies, probably so--but that was not the image of him shown to us. Why did they want to get rid of him? You can think of reasons (and probably not that Washington suddenly realized he was evil; they work with lots of evil people wiht no problem)--like maybe he was doing too good; maybe those countries are better kept ignorant and primitive and not in control of their own resources; the better for our corps to get what they want from them. Maybe we are paying the price for that now.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Then they really screwed up and did not do what they were supposed to do.

Yes--but they are always such goofs like that. I'm just absent minded; I didn't even try to hide it. If someone really wanted to hide something, I don't think it would be too hard. Oh yea, a friend of mine's wife went to somewhere in Central America, and bought like this doll thing, but when you pull the doll's head off, a big machete is hidden in the body, and she got on the plane with it. That was before the really strict screening I think. I'm just saying that they don't do what they should, that's why I think the terrorists must be really ineffective.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Yes. How does your suggestion that we should have fought the Hussein regime then (but not later ) counter the point I was making?

Well, I don't think they should have started the war, but it was not good to encourage those people to rebel, then just let them get gassed. If they hadn't started the war, it might not have happened. Does that seem like such an incompatible thing to think?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Wow, that's a pretty effective counterargument. Very analytical. Is it my turn? Okay, you're a booty-head. Cool.

Well, being deluded could explain your thinking, so my insult makes more sense. So there.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So which are we not doing? Are we not attracting terrorists to the region, or are we not killing them when they get there? Or is it both?

We are creating a never-ending supply.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Huh? So they are forced to stay in substandard homes and collect welfare? Or are they forced to hunt for food in their government yards? What are you saying?

UM, I think it is very easy to find out about the conditions of the Palestinians. If you want to be ignorant on the subject, be that way, but it would be very easily remedied. I don't know what you're talking about, I don't know if they give them welfare or not, just that they are not allowed to travel, etc. Of course I know if they let them go where they want, they start blowing themselves up in crowded places, so that's not good either. I think Israel is part of the problem too tho; and they are not a free secular society, that's what I'm saying.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I have said several times that we cannot do that alone.

The world is sick of us. They may not be sick of our aid, but they are sick of our wars. I say eliminate both, unless there is a place that is actually trying to help itself to become an actual secular free society and just needs help doing it. Of course we may not have that here forever; we may have to help ourselves.

How long a time limit do you expect for some progress to be made in Iraq? You do read the news about what is going on over there, right? When do we get to say we told you so? Or do you expect this to take several lifetimes, so you can always just say "we're making progress"?