Thread: Why Terrorism Exists

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?

What I am saying is that countries that are true democracies and have the major benefits that come with having been true democracies are not going to go to war with each other. They will also not have civil wars within themselves. Every war that has ever happened on this planet involved at least one side that was not a true and developed democracy, at least since the Industrial Revolution. At this point in time, there is no way the United States is going to go to war with Canada. France is not going to have a war with Japan. Australia will never go to war with Israel. None of those countries will ever be at war with another one of them. That is because the civility and prosperity that come with such governments take away the motivations for war between and among them.

That was not true at one time, but now we are well beyond the Industrial Revolution, which resulted in a great social advancement in democracies, partly because of the increases in prosperity and educational perspective. So when the whole world has been fully democratized and the benefits of that democratization have come about, countries will no longer go to war with each other.

I do agree that they will always have social problems within themselves, but not civil wars. The ignorance and primitivism that exist in people who feel hate towards entire races and religions and so forth are not widespread enough in the mainstream power structures of democracies for such goverments to go to war in the name of that ridiculousness. Also, governments truly run by the people do not have the people rising up against them, so such countries do not have civil wars at this stage in social evolution.

In other words, there is at least one major asshole in every fight. When no countries are major assholes, they no longer fight each other and their citizens no longer rise up in significant numbers and fight them.

It sounds like you're arguing for a world Government, UM. Do you honestly believe that invading countries and forcing a form of government on them has anything to do with freedom? Do you believe that the countries we are "freeing" with our invasions appreciate largely American owned companies building pipelines through their countries (Afghanistan) or American companies profiting off of their oil supplies (halliburton)? Tell me, do you think we should invade China? They are not a democratic nation. When are we going to invade England? How about Vatican City?

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"?

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

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"?

@ Moonie.

Remember "Mission Accomplished!"?

Thank you, Sky.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Do you believe that the countries we are "freeing" with our invasions appreciate largely American owned companies building pipelines through their countries (Afghanistan) or American companies profiting off of their oil supplies (halliburton)?

Yes, the invasion into Afghanistan was planned before 911 happened, for the pipeline. That gave them a completely legitimate reason to go in there then.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

It sounds like you're arguing for a world Government, UM. Do you honestly believe that invading countries and forcing a form of government on them has anything to do with freedom? Do you believe that the countries we are "freeing" with our invasions appreciate largely American owned companies building pipelines through their countries (Afghanistan) or American companies profiting off of their oil supplies (halliburton)? Tell me, do you think we should invade China? They are not a democratic nation. When are we going to invade England? How about Vatican City?

A world government? No. Where did you get that?

You obviously need to read the thread you are posting in if you are asking me if we should invade China. We have covered that several times. Make sure you read what I have already written in this thread before you decide to argue with me again. (That goes for others too.) I said that some countries would not be worth invading because of the fallout that would result. China is one of them. An invasion of China could pretty easily lead to the end of life on Earth.

England is a true democracy. As a result, it is one of the greatest countries in the world. Vatican City is not a country. It is a voluntary living quarters.

Do countries appreciate big businesses in them? They do when they get prosperous off them. Backward ass poor countries that are fresh out of dictatorship could use a great deal of that.

What do you think the world community should do with majorly oppressed dictatorships? What should be done about the situation in Sudan?

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

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.

No, it is very much in question. I showed you that with the link. What the Hussein regime reported cannot be trusted. I am surprised you don't agree with that. Here is another link.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

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.

It was not that he was merely evil. It was that he became a huge threat. His government and his legacy became a huge threat. It's not like we could just ignore that.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

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.

If that happened to everybody, I would agree. But the fact that it happens once in a while is not proof. We have caught a lot of terrorists in the act of trying junk at airports. We and England have stopped some major plots at airports. I also think there actually is a lot of profiling going on, though they want to make it look like there is not.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

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?

No, but it is beside the point. I was illustrating the fact that the Hussein regime was a WMD terrorist organization. The gas attack on the Kurds was determined to be an act of "genocide" by Human Rights Watch. It was the largest scale gas attack on a civilian population in history. The majority of the people who were gassed were women and children. It was an unnecessary act of WMD terrorism.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

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

Only a booty-head would think that.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

We are creating a never-ending supply.

I disagree, but your point does not refute the fact that we are attracting and killing terrorists.

A few weeks ago, there were zero U.S. military casualties in Iraq. Think about that. Our casualties are now lower than they have been since the war started. A lot of the areas of Iraq are now safe to live in. The terrorists are being reduced in number. That was the idea.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

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.

I was asking you about the points you made, and it turns out you were ignorant on your own points. If Palestinians are not allowed to work, then they are either getting welfare or some other charity or hunting for their food. Are they not allowed to visit their relatives in Palestine? Let me know when you figure out what you were saying.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

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.

There are too many innocent people in the world who need our help for us to abandon the world.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

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"?

It is already being made, as I illustrated. They have a democratic government that is getting closer and closer to the ability to be independent, they vote in higher percentages than we do, they have turned against the insurgents in large numbers, they have lots of safe regions of the country, and all of that is in a position to grow and grow. As far as the "I told you so" thing, the people who have been rabidly against this war are NEVER going to face the progress Iraq is going to keep making. Even if Iraq ended up being the richest nation in the world per capita with the lowest murder rate in the world and has the best education system of all time, the haters will still be saying, "The war was bullshit! Screw Bush! He lied about WMD's even though that intelligence came from five other goverments and the U.N. plus the previous administration, CIA, and Senate! The people of Iraq don't want to be free! They want to be oppressed! Screw Bush! I hate Bush!" That mentality is going to live on for the rest of the time our generation is alive... NO MATTER WHAT.

My guess is that we will be able to see very, very astounding differences in Iraq in the next fifteen to twenty years. The children of the people living there now are going to have a very different perspective on life and make major changes, and the grandchildren are going to turn Iraq into a Hell of a good country.

Originally Posted by skysaw

Remember "Mission Accomplished!"?

The overthrowing of the Hussein regime was a mission that was accomplished.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Yes, the invasion into Afghanistan was planned before 911 happened, for the pipeline. That gave them a completely legitimate reason to go in there then.

So, did the convenient excuse of the biggest terrorist attack on American soil in history just happen to happen and the government harboring the perpetrators just happened to be the terrorist government running Afghanistan? Or do you claim 9/11 was an inside job conspiracy?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Even if Iraq ended up being the richest nation in the world per capita with the lowest murder rate in the world and has the best education system of all time, the haters will still be saying, "The war was bullshit! Screw Bush! He lied about WMD's even though that intelligence came from five other goverments and the U.N. plus the previous administration, CIA, and Senate! The people of Iraq don't want to be free! They want to be oppressed! Screw Bush! I hate Bush!" That mentality is going to live on for the rest of the time our generation is alive... NO MATTER WHAT.

I don't think that is going to happen, I don't think that's really what the people in charge here want, and I'll always think Bush is a morally bankrupt moron that is being controlled by other people, but if Iraq does turn out like that, I'll admit that I was wrong about a lot of things. I guess time will tell.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So, did the convenient excuse of the biggest terrorist attack on American soil in history just happen to happen and the government harboring the perpetrators just happened to be the terrorist government running Afghanistan? Or do you claim 9/11 was an inside job conspiracy?

The thought that it was an inside job is too horrible; I surely hope that something that evil is beyond even our government's capabilities. I wonder a little bit, given the connections between the bin Laden family and the Bush family and his administration, but I sure hope not, and I don't think the evidence is there. I don't know--maybe a pre-emptive strike by bin Laden? Did bin Laden think it would freak us out so much we wouldn't invade, or destroy our economy? I really don't know.

15, 20, 30 years on, we'll see just how wrong we were. A whole generation of Iraqis will have grown up without ever knowing peace...

When the war started, it was less than six months that we would have to wait. If you ask me, UM, if the prosperity we seek is being pushed farther into the future, things are getting worse and not better.

The Pentagon has reported consistently over the past few months that, politically, Iraq is as bad as it was when we invaded. There is no effective national government, and the weak one that is in control of the green zone is corrupt. Incidentally, it is a Shiite-dominated, pro-Iran government, the kind that wouldn't mind helping the country you've named the source of global terrorism, UM. It reminds one of the Democratic victories of Hamas and Hezbollah.

Elections don't always mean Democracy and Democracy doesn't always mean peace. Pakistan is an excellent example of both phenomena. Musharraf abused the Democracy that elected him and is unwilling to allow his political opponents to challenge him. Why? His political opponents are Islamic Fundamentalists who want to convert Pakistan to a Saudi-style theocracy. If Democracy takes hold once again, we may have a radicalized government with nuclear weapons to deal with. What could go wrong?

When the Democratically-elected Shah government of Iran was overthrown by radicals backed by the US, the motivation was ostensibly to eliminate a government that was using force to undermine political opposition(though many would say it was because Iran nationalized its oil resources). The political opposition was full of radicalized fundamentalists, like Khomeini, who is now the Supreme Leader of Iran. This is widely known as a foreign policy blunder, but it was supposed to promote Democracy. 15, 20, 30 years down the line, it was still a blunder.

Saying that we wouldn't go to war with nations that have acquired nuclear weapons(France, Britain, etc) isn't a statement that supports the idea that Democracies are so peaceful. It neglects these situations and the fact that economic warfare has largely replaced formal military conflict: sanctions instead of bullets; starvation and sickness instead of mutilation. Democracies do tend to do better in negotiating benefits to enemies who agree to reform themselves, but this is another liability if I understand your position on the issue, UM.

The writers of the constitution made it clear that the republic was no panacea for war with other nations. It is only an instrument of providing the best governance possible to people who are supposed to be guardians of their own freedom. It provides no guard against spontaneous revolutions that come from domestic strife or the neglect of government institutions. Just because it is the best system available doesn't mean that we should attribute to it powers that it does not have. To have too much faith in Democracy is as bad as having too little.

I was not saying that every country that has elections is a true democracy. Even the Hussein regime had elections, but Hussein got 100% of the votes. I am talking about real democracies, and I am talking about after they have had time to reap the benefits of being true democracies. There will be some corruption in all of them. There is corruption in ours. But that corruption will diminish over time.

When I said we should not try to liberate nuclear nations, I of course was not talking about Britain and France. There is no reason to go to war with them in the first place. It would be absurd. We benefit each other instead.

Meet me here in 30 years, everybody. That will be November 3, 2037. Always remember that date. November 3, 2037. I am completely serious. Let's have a review of what ended up happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then let's have another one on November 3, 2067. At that point, we can all very much know how good or bad of an idea the beginning of the liberation of the Middle East was.

Terrism : Gouverment Manipulation over the population..

Problem --> Reaction --->> Solution

Woot

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Meet me here in 30 years, everybody. That will be November 3, 2037. Always remember that date. November 3, 2037. I am completely serious. Let's have a review of what ended up happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then let's have another one on November 3, 2067. At that point, we can all very much know how good or bad of an idea the beginning of the liberation of the Middle East was.

OK. I can make the first one at least.

When thirty years are up, we'll just apply the 3-part accountability test:

(1) If the situation is good: it's our fault. Our war made things good.

(2) If the situation is bad: it's ______'s fault. If ______ hadn't ruined everything, the war would have made things great by now.

(3) If the situation is ambiguous: Wait for a clearer picture to emerge that shows (1) or (2) is true.

Must we govern global affairs like children? I wouldn't trust an official who advocated such a transparent retreat from accountability.

I can understand if people are bored or frustrated from this debate, though.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

When thirty years are up, we'll just apply the 3-part accountability test:

(1) If the situation is good: it's our fault. Our war made things good.

(2) If the situation is bad: it's ______'s fault. If ______ hadn't ruined everything, the war would have made things great by now.

(3) If the situation is ambiguous: Wait for a clearer picture to emerge that shows (1) or (2) is true.

Must we govern global affairs like children? I wouldn't trust an official who advocated such a transparent retreat from accountability.

I can understand if people are bored or frustrated from this debate, though.

It is not about a public official's full argument. It is an interesting idea that I hope you will engage in with us. Are you saying you don't like the idea of talking about this in thirty years? I think it's a great idea. I am not talking about having a conversation then about who's fault is what. I just think it would be cool to talk about how Iraq and Afghanistan turned out thirty years from now. Don't you?

Since when did constitutional monarchies become democratic? As for Vatican city, I'm sorry to inform you but it is a country that is controlled by a theocratic monarchy.

I don't care whether you say the thread isn't about one world government or not; your arguments almost perfectly mirror the arguments that are made in favor of unifying world government in to one all encompassing entity. If you slapped a little blurb pushing the North American Union on the end of your every post, they would make a lot more sense.

Why is it that this country only feels the need to step in and over throw dictators when it is in our best interest? Why do we do nothing about mass genocide in countries with no bankable resources?

I'm all for patriotism, but its the people who blindly believe everything they are told about the motives of our government that give this country a bad name, and are ruining freedom for the rest of us. If you think our country's administration is worried about freedom and justice while they are tapping phones, committing unconstitional torture, allowing unchecked private military forces to commit atrocities under our country's banner, unlawfully arresting American citizens and stripping them of their constitutional rights, and who knows what else that no one has found out about yet then you are allowing yourself to be deluded by propaganda and false hopes of righteousness.

Terrorism is a brand that is applied by our government to vilify its enemies. Isreal commits the same sort of atrocities as any group that has been labeled a terrorist organisation, but they are our allies. They bomb civilians, commit daily shootings in the streets,and have killed or maimed close to 10,000 children in the last 7 years.

Terrorism is defined as "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes." I argue that our own government uses violence and threats of violence to intimidate and coerce the people of this country in to believing whatever they want us to believe. We have relinquished many of our rights in the last 6 years, and all for the sake of safety from unknown enemies. We have accepted faulty explanations for attacks on this country, including a list of terrorists that flew planes in to buildings that includes at least 7 people that are still alive and therefore could not have been on any plane that crashed and exploded, one of which was identified because his passport miraculously survived a 747 crashing and the resulting inferno unscathed and was somehow recovered mere moments after officials arrived on the scene.

I know you want to believe that our country is run by good people, but there is a reason why virtually no one in this thread agrees with you and its not because we are all idiots like you would like to believe.