Thread: Why Terrorism Exists

Originally Posted by mark

You know reading through this thread (and im aiming this at universal mind here) its no surprise that alot of the world hates America.

Meh continue with your double standards if you like and having read the utter ignorance of your posts im sure you will, but put your self in their shoes those people you hate so much are just you but acting for the other side.

The people I hate so much are oppressors and terrorists who want to kill YOU. Support of stopping further terrorist attacks on our soil (which has been done successfully) is not acting for the other side. Supporting taking down terrorist governments is not acting for the other side. Supporting reducing insurgent frequency, which has happened, is not acting for the other side. The truth is that you are looking for an excuse to act self-righteous and you don't really give a damn about the other side or their intended targets. Your outlet for acting like a jerk toward those who actually do want to make this a better world is what matters to you the most. I see straight through you.

What "double standards" are you talking about? Try not to be so vague.

Originally Posted by mark

Question.... if roles were reversed and it was your country invaded for a natural resource would you not pick up a gun and fight off the invaders?

You are making an unfounded assumption about the reasons for our wars, and you are ignoring the actual realities we are dealing with which are there even if your assumed accusation is correct. Are you sure you have read this thread? Look harder at why I support taking on terrorists. It is so common for people who act like you to jump to conclusions and overlook what people have said.

Originally Posted by mark

See the problem with people like you, you will argue and fight against oppression without ever realizing that all your doing is forcing your opinion on them and in doing so you inflict that same oppression you hate so much

Yes, my opinion is that oppression is out of the question, and I am willing to force that view on the entire world. If a man beats his kids, I will work to get him in jail if I know about it, even though I would be "forcing my opinion" on him. If I lived in the late 1800's, I would have spoken out very strongly against slavery and expressed major support for the Union without any problem with the fact that I was "forcing my opinion". Are you indifferent to oppression and think it's a person's right to oppress? I am nowhere near agreeing with that view.

Originally Posted by mark

You talk about their culture having issues (which like all cultures it does) as if yours does not, need I remind you of the New Orleans disaster and the way people were treated by your government or the fact the it was the original bush who funded osama bin ladden in the first place.

As if mine does not? Uh, no. You are seeing things again. I was a Katrina victim, and I blame nothing on Bush. My local government handled things very well and called for federal assistance ahead of time. The fact that the Louisiana government was pathetic in preparing for Katrina and did not request federal assistance until after the hurricane happened and that every one of the few routes into New Orleans had been demolished by the hurricane does not mean that foreign cultures of poverty and despair that breed terrorism should not be improved. Try to stay off the bizarre tangents.

Originally Posted by mark

All im saying here mate is open your eyes there are rights and wrongs on both sides. The way to solve this issue is understanding not war.

Good luck trying to get Islamofascist dictators and suicide bombers to be understanding, mate. Have you read Bin Laden's letter to America? You sound like you have not. Read the answer to Q2 and tell me how much Al Qaeda and like minded terrorists are willing to be understanding...

http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=44733

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The truth is that you are looking for an excuse to act self-righteous and you don't really give a damn about the other side or their intended targets. Your outlet for acting like a jerk toward those who actually do want to make this a better world is what matters to you the most. I see straight through you.

I really don't think mark is against making the world a better place; he is disagreeing on the methods used, as so many of us are.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I was a Katrina victim, and I blame nothing on Bush. My local government handled things very well and called for federal assistance ahead of time. The fact that the Louisiana government was pathetic in preparing for Katrina and did not request federal assistance until after the hurricane happened and that every one of the few routes into New Orleans had been demolished by the hurricane does not mean that foreign cultures of poverty and despair that breed terrorism should not be improved. Try to stay off the bizarre tangents.

Being from England, mark probably doesn't know the systems of state and federal government. What I see betwen the lines of his post is that from his viewpoint, our government spends a lot of money "saving" the Iraqis from themselves, while our own people are neglected. I'd have to agree with him about that. I guess you can blame the poor and indigent people of New Orleans, LA for not having the excellent choice in leadership that the state of Mississippi had, but it does appear that they got screwed. Even if you are OK with how it was handled, I imagine some of them have a little ill-will towards the incompetent Bush-appointed leaders who are supposed to take care of disasters. What if that had been a terrorist attack instead of a natural disaster? They are so far from prepared, it's a joke. But we have plenty of billions of dollars to send over to Iraq, right? Borrowed from China, by the way, because we don't want to have to piss anybody off by raising taxes and actually paying for some of this stuff as we go--better to let our kids take care of that.

Mark makes another good point that we are somewhat to blame for the current state of affairs. We supported the Taliban for many years when they were fighting the Russians; we didn't care a bit about their terrorism, lack of tolerance, and violent ways back then. I believe the spring of 2001 was the last of the Taliban's big payments from our federal government (I forget how much, but it was in the hundreds of thousands, maybe a million, I think). Not to mention the connections between the Bush and bin Laden families. Same with Saddam and his previous alliance with our government. Funny how our leaders' friends so quickly become "our" enemies, and it is our soldiers and their civilians which pay the price.

There's no money to be made in disaster relief. In going to war they get to borrow billions upon billions from the federal reserve and then pay it all back at interest with tax dollars. War and reconstruction companies that are outwright bribing these politicians with campaign contributions and in return get no bid contracts to build oil pipeline, and practically replace Iraq's economy so that it becomes little more than a colony to these corporations where, because of the small worth of their currency, these companies cn save money by overriding supply and demand. It makes life worse for our people and their people, and its against freetrade and the intent of the Founding Fathers. It breaks every principle this country claims to hold dear. But those in favor of the war like to sit behind colorfully painted curtains and look at them all day as talking point promoting a slanted view of reality blare in their ear teaching them there's no reason to objectively see the otherside of the story through ridicule.

My two cents, which would have been worth 3.5 cents before Bush was president.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I really don't think mark is against making the world a better place; he is disagreeing on the methods used, as so many of us are.

When people act self-righeously insulting on a personal level without attempting a civil dialogue first, I know how much they care about civility and peace.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

IBeing from England, mark probably doesn't know the systems of state and federal government. What I see betwen the lines of his post is that from his viewpoint, our government spends a lot of money "saving" the Iraqis from themselves, while our own people are neglected. I'd have to agree with him about that. I guess you can blame the poor and indigent people of New Orleans, LA for not having the excellent choice in leadership that the state of Mississippi had, but it does appear that they got screwed. Even if you are OK with how it was handled, I imagine some of them have a little ill-will towards the incompetent Bush-appointed leaders who are supposed to take care of disasters. What if that had been a terrorist attack instead of a natural disaster? They are so far from prepared, it's a joke. But we have plenty of billions of dollars to send over to Iraq, right? Borrowed from China, by the way, because we don't want to have to piss anybody off by raising taxes and actually paying for some of this stuff as we go--better to let our kids take care of that.

You are addressing what was an irrelevant tangent of his.

Getting federal help into New Orleans was extremely difficult. Have you ever been there? It has an enormous lake on one side of it, the second widest river in the world on another, and a river basin next to the ocean on another side. There are swamps and creeks all over the place around it. The few bridges that lead into the city were destroyed. However, Bush did send in helicopters to rescue people from the flood waters. Guess what happened. The helicopters got shot at. I have no idea how that situation could have been handled well. I don't think anybody else does either.

Katrina tore up Jackson too. I had no electricity for a week, my water was undrinkable for a week, all of my appointments were cancelled, I did not have enough gas in my car to sit in line for four hours and get gas, and the population of my city had doubled in one night and become cluttered with all kinds of trash from New Orleans that drove straight up I-55 to the first big city. I did not blame Bush for any of that. None of that means that the Middle East cannot be vastly improved so that the poor and primitive despair climate that breeds terrorism should not be handled.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Mark makes another good point that we are somewhat to blame for the current state of affairs. We supported the Taliban for many years when they were fighting the Russians; we didn't care a bit about their terrorism, lack of tolerance, and violent ways back then. I believe the spring of 2001 was the last of the Taliban's big payments from our federal government (I forget how much, but it was in the hundreds of thousands, maybe a million, I think). Not to mention the connections between the Bush and bin Laden families. Same with Saddam and his previous alliance with our government. Funny how our leaders' friends so quickly become "our" enemies, and it is our soldiers and their civilians which pay the price.

I am going to say what I have probably said more than anything else I have said in this forum. Alliance is not synonymous with complete support. We allied with the Hussein regime against Iran. We allied with the Afghan fighers because the Soviets had to be dealt with. The future of the world was depending on it. We allied with rotten people because we had a common enemy. Their country had been invaded by a force that was out to take over the world and oppress it. It did not mean we agreed with everything the Afghans stood for. We also allied with the Soviets in WWII. Go figure.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I am going to say what I have probably said more than anything else I have said in this forum. Alliance is not synonymous with complete support. We allied with the Hussein regime against Iran. We allied with the Afghan fighers because the Soviets had to be dealt with. The future of the world was depending on it. We allied with rotten people because we had a common enemy. Their country had been invaded by a force that was out to take over the world and oppress it. It did not mean we agreed with everything the Afghans stood for. We also allied with the Soviets in WWII. Go figure.

So where does it end? Did you read what I said? We paid the Taliban millions of dollars and gave them weapons. One of their own was responsible for 9/11. They shot at and killed our soldiers with our own guns. It's complete insanity.

Just how do we pick our sides? We picked Saddam, but you have said over and over that he was evil incarnate? What the hell is the point of siding with someone who is going to retaliate like the Taliban or like you say Saddam was going to with his WMD? Are the Soviets and the Iranians worse than the Taliban and Saddam? Evidently not; neither of them has attacked us lately. Maybe places like Iran wouldn't have reason to attack us in the future if we pick sides. There are no winners here.

Sometimes allies turn into enemies. In hindsight, we should have never allied with the Hussein regime. However, we should have allied with the Soviets in WWII and the Afghans during the Cold War. All of them are scum, but sometimes it is necessary to side with scum to defeat a common enemy. Taking down the Soviet Union might be the most important thing that has ever happened.

It's hard to argue against the dogged belief that democracy spread by force can change the world for the better. Terrorists like Al Qaeda have a similar belief: Islam spread by force can change the world for the better.

Killing a person is the ultimate form of oppression. If a person kills an oppressor, it is not murder only in the case of self-defense. Of course, for the enterprising parser, that is a loophole you could march an army through, with every step exclaiming belief in a fantasy that the entire Earth must be saved, that the number of innocents saved will always be far larger than the number killed, and no amount of killing would be unjustified in the pursuit of some goal, whether it's Communism, Islam, or Democracy.

Advancing any of these ideas by force completely misses the motivations that cause each of them to be adopted--peace, prosperity, and justice. War destroys all three.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Terrorists like Al Qaeda have a similar belief: Islam spread by force can change the world for the better.

And they are wrong.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Advancing any of these ideas by force completely misses the motivations that cause each of them to be adopted--peace, prosperity, and justice. War destroys all three.

Absolute passivity guarantees the complete absence of all three.

From Universal Mind
Absolute passivity guarantees the complete absence of all three.

Wars are not solely fought to advance religions or forms of government, UM. Sometimes, they are fought only to resist countries that make war for their own interests, not to advance a different set of interests. As usual, no one is advocating surrender against any and all enemies. Some are merely advocating war that does not seek to advance any goal but the end of the war.

The war against terror should be waged against the George W. Bush and the many "men behind the curtain"

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Sometimes allies turn into enemies. In hindsight, we should have never allied with the Hussein regime. However, we should have allied with the Soviets in WWII and the Afghans during the Cold War. All of them are scum, but sometimes it is necessary to side with scum to defeat a common enemy. Taking down the Soviet Union might be the most important thing that has ever happened.

It seems that a lot of our allies turn into enemies, doesn't it? I don't see how gambling that the Soviet Union wouldn't go ahead and take over the whole world after they invaded Afghanistan was better than arming people like bin Laden and the Taliban. Or propping up Saddam and making him what he was only to end up in two wars with him was better than letting Iran take him. It doesn't seem to work out to well (for our soldiers anyway) when our leaders "side with scum". It also doesn't look like we are really concerned about human rights and freedom when we do that; more so that we will do absolutely anything to protect our financial interests, including arming religious fundamentalists like the Taliban.

The Soviet Union collapsed because their system was inefficient; it had nothing to do with us keeping them out of Afghanistan. We weren't trying to keep them out of Afghanistan to prevent them from "taking over the world", we were doing it because we wanted to keep the country safe for an oil-pipeline. The countries that made up their union are independent states now. Afghanistan would probably have been a much different place now if we had allowed the Soviets to take it, who knows? It couldn't have been any worse than what we have now, could it?

You buy what they are telling you about spreading democracy, and we argue about it as if were true. What's funny is that's just a cover story anyway; they don't really care if the people of Iraq get to vote or not, it's all about oil and it always has been--in both Afghanistan and Iraq. So you believe in a lie which wouldn't work even if it were true.

You know, we are not any different than the Soviets at this point. They believed that their system of government was the best, and they spread it by force thru countries whose resources that they wanted.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Wars are not solely fought to advance religions or forms of government, UM. Sometimes, they are fought only to resist countries that make war for their own interests, not to advance a different set of interests. As usual, no one is advocating surrender against any and all enemies. Some are merely advocating war that does not seek to advance any goal but the end of the war.

You made a blanket statement against war.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

It seems that a lot of our allies turn into enemies, doesn't it? I don't see how gambling that the Soviet Union wouldn't go ahead and take over the whole world after they invaded Afghanistan was better than arming people like bin Laden and the Taliban. Or propping up Saddam and making him what he was only to end up in two wars with him was better than letting Iran take him. It doesn't seem to work out to well (for our soldiers anyway) when our leaders "side with scum". It also doesn't look like we are really concerned about human rights and freedom when we do that; more so that we will do absolutely anything to protect our financial interests, including arming religious fundamentalists like the Taliban.

The Soviet Union collapsed because their system was inefficient; it had nothing to do with us keeping them out of Afghanistan. We weren't trying to keep them out of Afghanistan to prevent them from "taking over the world", we were doing it because we wanted to keep the country safe for an oil-pipeline. The countries that made up their union are independent states now. Afghanistan would probably have been a much different place now if we had allowed the Soviets to take it, who knows? It couldn't have been any worse than what we have now, could it?

You buy what they are telling you about spreading democracy, and we argue about it as if were true. What's funny is that's just a cover story anyway; they don't really care if the people of Iraq get to vote or not, it's all about oil and it always has been--in both Afghanistan and Iraq. So you believe in a lie which wouldn't work even if it were true.

You know, we are not any different than the Soviets at this point. They believed that their system of government was the best, and they spread it by force thru countries whose resources that they wanted.

What we have here is way better than totalitarianism. The world deserves freedom, and no government has a right to be totalitarian. They are two completely different things. You are damn lucky the U.S. did not let the Soviets get their way. You would not have the freedom to get on the internet and trash your country if they did.

We needed to ally with the Soviet Union against the Nazis. Don't you agree? So sometimes allying with scum is necessary.

What you keep saying about it how it is ALL about oil is an assumption, and an unfounded one. My agreement with the war rationales you talked about is not rooted in automatic belief in somebody's word. It is about reaching the same conclusions as the policy makers because of what makes sense to me. Why do you automatically believe the oil conspiracy lies?

From Universal Mind
You made a blanket statement against war.

I applaud your brevity, but I'm afraid you've misread the post. Perhaps it would help if the relevant phrases were in bold text:

From R.D.735
It's hard to argue against the dogged belief that democracy spread by force can change the world for the better. Terrorists like Al Qaeda have a similar belief: Islam spread by force can change the world for the better.
...
no amount of killing would be unjustified in the pursuit of some goal, whether it's Communism, Islam, or Democracy.
...
Advancing any of these ideas by force completely misses the motivations that cause each of them to be adopted--peace, prosperity, and justice. War destroys all three.

Then, my response to your post:

From R.D.735
As usual, no one is advocating surrender against any and all enemies. Some are merely advocating war that does not seek to advance any goal but the end of the war.

Since I'm against the initiation of war, it is easy to misinterpret this as being also against self-defense, which is not the case. This takes us to a central idea of the offending post:

From R.D.735
Killing a person is the ultimate form of oppression. If a person kills an oppressor, it is not murder only in the case of self-defense. Of course, for the enterprising parser, that is a loophole you could march an army through...

Having a reasonable degree of humanity, I wish self defense were always unnecessary, but I know that is an ideal, not reality. Realistically, self defense is sometimes necessary. Whether in the ideal or not, however, aggression is always unnecessary. The problem we have is that some cannot distinguish between the two when other interests besides safety are at risk.

This is how all wars are begun: one group begins a war to advance interests that they believe are connected directly to their safety, rather than waging war in order to preserve their safety. In the process, safety is made secondary to interests indirectly connected to safety. Thus, the priorities of aggressive war are the exact opposite of the rational for defensive war, and the result is similarly opposite: safety is sacrificed to promote interests instead of interests being sacrificed to promote safety.

This is what war-profiteering represents. This is what violent Islamic Jihad represents. It's what Hitler spread across the world, what Spanish conquistadors tried in the New World, what the Romans accomplished in Europe, what the US was trying to accomplish in Vietnam, and what Soviet Russia was trying to accomplish in Afghanistan. Each one had an idea, some ideology, that would supposedly make the world a better place if only everyone shared it, and the presence of any other idea was a threat. Every single effort was immensely destructive and evil, even when success was achieved. In a supposedly more civilized age, we recognize that those ideologies were only desperate rationalizations of naked aggression.

Sorry about the long post. Brevity is apparently not my strong point.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What we have here is way better than totalitarianism. The world deserves freedom, and no government has a right to be totalitarian. They are two completely different things. You are damn lucky the U.S. did not let the Soviets get their way. You would not have the freedom to get on the internet and trash your country if they did.

I didn't say that I thought totalitarianism was better than what we have here. I'm not going to go back to the argument we've already had about whether Iraqis and the Middle East in general even want democracy. Have you heard how they've started killing the Christians in Iraq now? They are going to be such a model society of tolerance and freedom. After the terrorist-vaccuming is over, I mean.

I'm not trashing my country, I'm trashing the administration who works for the interests of coporations using our tax money and soldiers' blood for profit, and the people who stand by and let them do it. So you think anyone who disagrees with the government is "trashing their country"? That's a low blow--sounds a little totalitarian to me, and it makes me think you don't really have a good response to what I am saying, so you resort to insulting my patriotism. Maybe you think I shouldn't have the right to say it at all? So by thinking that the president should have to follow the constitution and not do whatever the hell he wants, and that we shouldn't cause an enormous amount of suffering for no end other than making his friends richer, I am committing some sort of offense? I think they are destroying our country, honestly, and we are going towards fascism, and it's people like you who accuse people who disagree with you of "trashing their country" that will let it happen.

Do you know about NSPD-51, and the plan to suspend the constitution in case of "catastrophic emergency"? What constitutes a catastrophic emergency is conveniently defined by the president. I think people who think we are safe from a coup in this country may get a surprise someday. That's the kind of thing that people who "trash their country" are trying to prevent.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We needed to ally with the Soviet Union against the Nazis. Don't you agree? So sometimes allying with scum is necessary.

That analogy is so absolutely inaccurate it's ridiculous. So you think that uniting with the Soviets to defeat Hitler from taking over the world is the same as us funding the Taliban to keep Afghanistan safe for our pipeline? It's laughable. So, no I don't agree, because you don't know what you are talking about.

I really don't think you have much knowledge of the events leading up to our invasion of Iraq, and what really happened in Afghanistan. If you did, you wouldn't constantly compare it to WWII.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What you keep saying about it how it is ALL about oil is an assumption, and an unfounded one. My agreement with the war rationales you talked about is not rooted in automatic belief in somebody's word. It is about reaching the same conclusions as the policy makers because of what makes sense to me. Why do you automatically believe the oil conspiracy lies?

Let's see...what are all those many reasons you are always talking about that made us choose Iraq as the first place to liberate in our policy of spreading freedom to the masses of the world? Let's see, the first one was our ex-friend Saddam, the next one is...what was that again?

You know, a lot, I'd say the majority, of people don't really think about what is going on in the middle east, and as long as they are not inconvenienced and gas is cheap, they'll go along with anything, and they don't care why we are there. Then there are people who are outraged, and don't want to contribute to never-ending violence and suffering, just so they can drive an SUV. Then there's a small minority of oil executives, other corporate leaders, and politicians getting rich on it, and they are all for it, and are actually the ones telling the lies. But there are very few people who pay attention, and actually accept the lies at face value.

So I'm assuming you are heavily invested in oil. Nothing else could explain your thought processes.

R.D., more brevity. You said this...

Originally Posted by R.D.735

War destroys all three.

The "three" are peace, prosperity, and justice. That is the blanket statement I have been talking about.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I didn't say that I thought totalitarianism was better than what we have here. I'm not going to go back to the argument we've already had about whether Iraqis and the Middle East in general even want democracy. Have you heard how they've started killing the Christians in Iraq now? They are going to be such a model society of tolerance and freedom. After the terrorist-vaccuming is over, I mean.

You equated the spreading of democracy and the spreading of totalitarianism. They are completely different things. One is a form of oppression, and the other is a moral obligation.

Once again... You cannot judge the future of Iraq based on bad things that happen during the transition phase. How many times do I need to say that?

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

II'm not trashing my country, I'm trashing the administration who works for the interests of coporations using our tax money and soldiers' blood for profit, and the people who stand by and let them do it. So you think anyone who disagrees with the government is "trashing their country"? That's a low blow--sounds a little totalitarian to me, and it makes me think you don't really have a good response to what I am saying, so you resort to insulting my patriotism. Maybe you think I shouldn't have the right to say it at all? So by thinking that the president should have to follow the constitution and not do whatever the hell he wants, and that we shouldn't cause an enormous amount of suffering for no end other than making his friends richer, I am committing some sort of offense? I think they are destroying our country, honestly, and we are going towards fascism, and it's people like you who accuse people who disagree with you of "trashing their country" that will let it happen.

You trashed our policies of present day and past, and I'm sure you would admit that what you have to say is pretty viciously insulting. You did not just disagree with them. What I said was not meant as an attack on you. It was relevant to the point I was making, a point you did not even address. My point was that you would not have the freedom to insult your government if the Soviets had gotten their way. Do you remember that part of the point? I have no idea where you get the idea I think you should have no right to say it at all. You sound pretty passionate about that matter. Then why do you equate spreading freedom and spreading totalitarianism? Spreading freedom gives people the right to say derogatory things about their governments. Spreading totalitarianism takes it away. You sound like somebody who should despise totalitarianism. I know I do. Why don't you?

Do you think the people of Iraq and Afghanistan should have the right to speak out against their goverments? You sound pretty passionately in favor of that right. You do believe that others should have that right too, don't you? Or do you think only we Americans should have that right? I think the whole world is entitled to it. How about you?

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Do you know about NSPD-51, and the plan to suspend the constitution in case of "catastrophic emergency"? What constitutes a catastrophic emergency is conveniently defined by the president. I think people who think we are safe from a coup in this country may get a surprise someday. That's the kind of thing that people who "trash their country" are trying to prevent.

You are really wrapped up in that part of my point instead of the point itself. Why? You know what you said. I trash our government too sometimes. Have you forgotten? It is not the important part of my point. Put your own politically correct terminology in there if it makes you feel better and respond to my actual point.

Suspending the Constitution is someting I consider out of the question. I have issues with a lot of the current administration's domestic policies and ideas.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

That analogy is so absolutely inaccurate it's ridiculous. So you think that uniting with the Soviets to defeat Hitler from taking over the world is the same as us funding the Taliban to keep Afghanistan safe for our pipeline? It's laughable. So, no I don't agree, because you don't know what you are talking about.

Are you okay? You are acting very hysterical and missing my points by a few miles. Therefore, you have no idea what you are talking about. My point was that sometimes alliances with scum are necessary. You also know I don't agree with your pipleline conspiracy hypothesis, and you know what I think about what I deem Cold War necessities. You need to calm your nerves and try to make sense.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I really don't think you have much knowledge of the events leading up to our invasion of Iraq, and what really happened in Afghanistan. If you did, you wouldn't constantly compare it to WWII.

You know that ad hominem is a fallacy, right? Ad hominem is the use of personal insults without the use of relevant debate points. You are going to have to use real debate points to have a real debate.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

ILet's see...what are all those many reasons you are always talking about that made us choose Iraq as the first place to liberate in our policy of spreading freedom to the masses of the world? Let's see, the first one was our ex-friend Saddam, the next one is...what was that again?

Exactly. You don't pay much attention to what I write, yet you are going nuttier and nuttier over it. I have only explained it to you about forty times. Make sure you know what I have said before you start chirping about it.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

You know, a lot, I'd say the majority, of people don't really think about what is going on in the middle east, and as long as they are not inconvenienced and gas is cheap, they'll go along with anything, and they don't care why we are there. Then there are people who are outraged, and don't want to contribute to never-ending violence and suffering, just so they can drive an SUV. Then there's a small minority of oil executives, other corporate leaders, and politicians getting rich on it, and they are all for it, and are actually the ones telling the lies. But there are very few people who pay attention, and actually accept the lies at face value.

So I'm assuming you are heavily invested in oil. Nothing else could explain your thought processes.

What is happening to you? That is probably the dumbest point you have ever made here. Read at least a few of my hundreds of posts about Iraq, for once, and then maybe you can understand my argument. You just admitted twice in one post that you don't even know what it is. Think about that.

From Universal Mind
The "three" are peace, prosperity, and justice. That is the blanket statement I have been talking about.

I'm puzzled.

By 'blanket statement,' I assume you meant 'generalization,' and if you called my statement a generalization, you must have been trying to make reference to an exception to the idea that war destroys peace, prosperity, and justice, an exception which I took to be self-defense.

If you were pointing out that you think an exception exists in which war creates peace, prosperity, and justice, it is akin to saying famine can ease hunger, that ignorance increases awareness, or that you can warm a drink by making it cold. They're opposite states, by definition. Only in the most absurdly cynical world-view does war accomplish peace, prosperity, and justice(which is exactly why such phrases can be found in 1984).

I don't think this is the exception you meant to point out, but if it's neither the former nor the latter, what is it?

On a side note, I found this quite amusing:

From Universal Mind
You know that ad hominem is a fallacy, right? Ad hominem is the use of personal insults without the use of relevant debate points. You are going to have to use real debate points to have a real debate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonbeam View Post
ILet's see...what are all those many reasons you are always talking about that made us choose Iraq as the first place to liberate in our policy of spreading freedom to the masses of the world? Let's see, the first one was our ex-friend Saddam, the next one is...what was that again?

Exactly. You don't pay much attention to what I write, yet you are going nuttier and nuttier over it. I have only explained it to you about forty times. Make sure you know what I have said before you start chirping about it.

Ahaha, he has you there Universal Mind.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You trashed our policies of present day and past, and I'm sure you would admit that what you have to say is pretty viciously insulting.

Umm...do you mean insulting to the current administration; well, yes, but so what? You don't seem to think our leaders and their policies should be criticized at all, and to do so is a "trashing our country".

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Do you think the people of Iraq and Afghanistan should have the right to speak out against their goverments?

Until they believe in those rights and are willing to fight for them themselves, it does not help to kill them to force them into democracy.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I think the whole world is entitled to it. How about you?

See above.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Put your own politically correct terminology in there if it makes you feel better and respond to my actual point.

I did respond to yours; you just didn't like the response. You don't respond to my points.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Suspending the Constitution is someting I consider out of the question. I have issues with a lot of the current administration's domestic policies and ideas.

Oh really? You would never know that, considering how you defend their right to do whatever they want without being criticized.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You are acting very hysterical and missing my points by a few miles.

You always start talking like that when you know you have no good response.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Therefore, you have no idea what you are talking about. My point was that sometimes alliances with scum are necessary.

And my point was that allying with the Taliban is not the same as allying with the Soviets to defeat Hitler. If you can't see that, there is no point in even discussing this with you. You don't know what is going on. Honestly--do you really think that the Soviets going into Afghanistan was equal to Hitler taking over the world? Do you really thinking allying with scum on the order of magnitude of the Taliban was worth it? Looking back on it now, do you think we made a mistake allying with and arming the same people who caused 9/11? Did we make a mistake allying with, supporting, and arming Saddam? If you think those were mistakes, you are a lunatic. And yes, I know that's an insult, but you started it.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You also know I don't agree with your pipleline conspiracy hypothesis, and you know what I think about what I deem Cold War necessities. You need to calm your nerves and try to make sense.

It's not a conspiracy. I'll find it for you later when I have time.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You know that ad hominem is a fallacy, right? Ad hominem is the use of personal insults without the use of relevant debate points. You are going to have to use real debate points to have a real debate.

Exactly. You don't pay much attention to what I write, yet you are going nuttier and nuttier over it. I have only explained it to you about forty times. Make sure you know what I have said before you start chirping about it.

RD already adressessed this for me, thanks.

UM, it's really obvious when you know that someone has made points that you can't argue with because you begin using words like "hysterical", "nutty", "chirping", etc. Your the biggest ad-hominemer there is. I responded to every point you made, and your response is to insult me.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What is happening to you? That is probably the dumbest point you have ever made here. Read at least a few of my hundreds of posts about Iraq, for once, and then maybe you can understand my argument. You just admitted twice in one post that you don't even know what it is. Think about that.

More insults. And why don't you list the reasons we went into Iraq, in order of importance, just to refresh my mind.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

I'm puzzled.

By 'blanket statement,' I assume you meant 'generalization,' and if you called my statement a generalization, you must have been trying to make reference to an exception to the idea that war destroys peace, prosperity, and justice, an exception which I took to be self-defense.

If you were pointing out that you think an exception exists in which war creates peace, prosperity, and justice, it is akin to saying famine can ease hunger, that ignorance increases awareness, or that you can warm a drink by making it cold. They're opposite states, by definition. Only in the most absurdly cynical world-view does war accomplish peace, prosperity, and justice(which is exactly why such phrases can be found in 1984).

War does accomplish all three of those in certain instances. It comes with a temporary giving up of degrees of those things, but the end result often makes nations come out way ahead of where they would be otherwise in all three areas.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

I don't think this is the exception you meant to point out, but if it's neither the former nor the latter, what is it?

Self-defense is one category of situations that can be exceptions to your generalized statement (Afghanistan against Soviet Union). The defense of others can be also (Gulf War). The defense of the world itself can be a primary justification (World War II). Overthrowing tyrranical governments before they stage attacks is another (initial battles in current Iraq war). Overthrowing a separate government that is merely oppressing your nation and has no plans of attacking it is another (the story of many ancient wars). So is fighting to keep a nation together (American Civil War). Fighting to end the genocide of people of another nation is another exception (a hypothetical war against the government of Sudan).

Originally Posted by jmp

Ahaha, he has you there Universal Mind.

Let's see if you can elaborate on that.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Umm...do you mean insulting to the current administration; well, yes, but so what? You don't seem to think our leaders and their policies should be criticized at all, and to do so is a "trashing our country".

Why do you want to keep beating a dead horse over my terminology and not the actual point I was making? The very negative things you said do amount to trashing, but that is not what is important. My point is that you have a right to say negative things about the government. Under a totalitarian government, you would not have such a right.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Until they believe in those rights and are willing to fight for them themselves, it does not help to kill them to force them into democracy.

We are not targetting civilians, we are killing as few as possible, and the people of Iraq vote in higher percentages than we do, even in the face of death threats for voting. That speaks volumes about how much so many of them cherish democracy.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I did respond to yours; you just didn't like the response. You don't respond to my points.

Be specific. Where did you talk about how you would not be able to say negative things about your government if it were totalitarian? What points of yours did I not respond to?

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Oh really? You would never know that, considering how you defend their right to do whatever they want without being criticized.

You made that up. Look at one of the drug or church and state threads and see otherwise.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

You always start talking like that when you know you have no good response.

I gave a good response, and you did in fact miss my points.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

And my point was that allying with the Taliban is not the same as allying with the Soviets to defeat Hitler. If you can't see that, there is no point in even discussing this with you. You don't know what is going on. Honestly--do you really think that the Soviets going into Afghanistan was equal to Hitler taking over the world? Do you really thinking allying with scum on the order of magnitude of the Taliban was worth it? Looking back on it now, do you think we made a mistake allying with and arming the same people who caused 9/11? Did we make a mistake allying with, supporting, and arming Saddam? If you think those were mistakes, you are a lunatic. And yes, I know that's an insult, but you started it.

I never said all of those situations are exactly the same. Why are you going on about that? Yes, I think we should have allied with the Afghans against the Soviets. No, I do not think we should have allied with the Hussein regime (I made that clear a few posts ago.) And no I did not start the insults. You did.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

It's not a conspiracy. I'll find it for you later when I have time.

It is a conspiracy if so many people were making false claims about the justifications for the war so they could pursue an economic interest.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

RD already adressessed this for me, thanks.

All R.D. did was quote me and say she found it amusing. If she thinks I am doing what I accused you of, she needs to say that and back it up. R.D. definitely said nothing to counter my accusation against you.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

UM, it's really obvious when you know that someone has made points that you can't argue with because you begin using words like "hysterical", "nutty", "chirping", etc. Your the biggest ad-hominemer there is. I responded to every point you made, and your response is to insult me.

I responded to your ad hominem point that I don't know history and don't know what I'm talking about. Stop playing innocent. It's not going to work.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

More insults. And why don't you list the reasons we went into Iraq, in order of importance, just to refresh my mind.

Are you going to read what I write this time? Remember that it was the conglomeration of these reasons and that nobody in the administration claimed any one of these alone would have been used as a reason for war.

1. The Hussein regimes history of terrorism, one case in which they used WMD's, and their support of terrorist organizations and Palestinians suicide bombers, taken into consideration in light of the fact that six governments and the U.N. reported that they had stockpiles of WMD's. One less terrorist government means a whole lot less funding and less access to powerful weapons.

2. Continuation of Gulf War. The Hussein regime violated our ceasefire on several (terrorism) grounds for twelve years, and the stated consequence of noncompliance was overthrow.

3. Creation of large democracy in the heart of the Middle East. The idea is to create prosperity and education in a place where poverty and despair bred the suicide bomb mentality and to influence surrounding nations to move toward democracy once Iraq (and Afghanistan) becomes far superior economically and socially to the surrounding nations.

4. To influence surrounding nations to comply with our anti-terrorism measures and to stay in check. Khadaffi of Libbya is a good example of where that worked.

4. To vacuum up as many potential terrorists as possible.

5. The end of severe oppression and genocide is a great thing, and it is an excellent bonus in a war fought for also the other reasons.

From Universal Mind
War does accomplish all three of those in certain instances. It comes with a temporary giving up of degrees of those things, but the end result often makes nations come out way ahead of where they would be otherwise in all three areas.

Because you specifically mention self-defense separately, am I to assume that you are saying initiating an aggressive war can allow countries, in certain instances, to achieve far more than they could if they had only peace? I'd like to point out that peace is not a matter of degree. Countries are either at peace or at war. Similarly, though justice has degrees, it can never increase beyond the point that justice is fully carried out. Prosperity, on the other hand, is limitless, a direct consequence of the average volume of resources being used to better the conditions of each person. It is, however, mathematically impossible to sacrifice resources destructively and end up with more resources to spread around the same number of people, so perhaps you are referring to the cynical conclusion that there are less people sharing a proportionately greater amount of resources, so that average prosperity increases after a war.

I don't believe you're that cynical, so I'm assuming that you were only referring to self-defense, which you explicitly mention in the next quote.

From Universal Mind
Self-defense is one category of situations that can be exceptions to your generalized statement (Afghanistan against Soviet Union). The defense of others can be also (Gulf War). The defense of the world itself can be a primary justification (World War II). Overthrowing tyrranical governments before they stage attacks is another (initial battles in current Iraq war). Overthrowing a separate government that is merely oppressing your nation and has no plans of attacking it is another (the story of many ancient wars). So is fighting to keep a nation together (American Civil War). Fighting to end the genocide of people of another nation is another exception (a hypothetical war against the government of Sudan).

Fortunately, I already addressed self-defense. Pointing this out as an exception to my statement completely misses the vast majority of the content in my recent posts.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Because you specifically mention self-defense separately, am I to assume that you are saying initiating an aggressive war can allow countries, in certain instances, to achieve far more than they could if they had only peace? I'd like to point out that peace is not a matter of degree. Countries are either at peace or at war. Similarly, though justice has degrees, it can never increase beyond the point that justice is fully carried out. Prosperity, on the other hand, is limitless, a direct consequence of the average volume of resources being used to better the conditions of each person. It is, however, mathematically impossible to sacrifice resources destructively and end up with more resources to spread around the same number of people, so perhaps you are referring to the cynical conclusion that there are less people sharing a proportionately greater amount of resources, so that average prosperity increases after a war.

I disagree. I believe there are degrees of peace. There are several categories of when war can increase the overall peace in the long run. A population may or may not go down during the war (It depends on birth rate), but either way the overall peace can be greatly increased for the long run. Do you deny that that has ever happened? The Civil War ended slavery and united the country. The Revolutionary War gave us freedom from unfair English rulership. World War II prevented the Nazis from taking over the world and wiping out the majority of the human race. The list goes on. The fact that fewer people are living in the countries for the short term as a result of the war does not change the fact that the level of peace can be far greater than otherwise as a result of war.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

I don't believe you're that cynical, so I'm assuming that you were only referring to self-defense, which you explicitly mention in the next quote.

No, I don't think self-defense is the only justification for war. I believe in helping other nations, and I believe in preventing relatively greater disaster before it happens.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Fortunately, I already addressed self-defense. Pointing this out as an exception to my statement completely misses the vast majority of the content in my recent posts.

No, I mentioned it to acknowledge the fact that you had mentioned it more than once and to show that I agree. I listed various justifications for war, and self-defense is of course one of them.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Why do you want to keep beating a dead horse over my terminology and not the actual point I was making? The very negative things you said do amount to trashing, but that is not what is important. My point is that you have a right to say negative things about the government. Under a totalitarian government, you would not have such a right.

1) Your "trashing" is someone else's truth-telling. That is just your opinion. And sorry to be so "negative"--we can't all be as positive as you that war is absolutely the right thing to do.

2) Why do you keep bringing up the fact that under a totalitarian goverment I wouldn't have the right to free speech? It is not relevant to the current conversation, unless you think the terrorists are going to take over our government sometime soon. I don't get your point. Are you trying to say that because in the past we have fought wars that appeared to be justified, any war now is? Are you saying that if we didn't keep the Soviets out of Afghanistan, we would be under their control now? I just don't know why you say that, I'm not "beating a dead horse".

OK, I found some stuff about the pipeline. That's a start. It's not really a secret, so you can find much more about it if you look, in case you don't like these sources.

http://www.ringnebula.com/Oil/Timeline.htm
http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=234
http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/afghanistan.asp
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/12.30A.afgh.pipe.htm


And while I'm at it, I'll correct something that I said earlier. I said that the Bush administration gave the Taliban something like a million dollars in the spring of 2001--I was way off. They gave $43 million to them in May 2001, for a total of $124 million that year.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30166

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We are not targeting civilians, we are killing as few as possible, and the people of Iraq vote in higher percentages than we do, even in the face of death threats for voting. That speaks volumes about how much so many of them cherish democracy.

How much do they cherish religious freedom? Or is that not necessary for a democracy? How can they "cherish" an institution they've never known and is not part of their culture?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You made that up. Look at one of the drug or church and state threads and see otherwise.

OK, you may disagree with them on that point, but when you say that disagreeing with them about a war is "trashing" them it tends to make you sound like you'd just about go along with anything they said, if they told you it was the right thing to do.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I never said all of those situations are exactly the same. Why are you going on about that? Yes, I think we should have allied with the Afghans against the Soviets.

See if you still think that after you learn about the real reasons for our planned invasion, which preceded 9/11. The only reason to keep the Soviets out was to keep the area safe for our oil interests--that is all. If you admit it's all been for oil, you may very well agree that we should have sided with the Taliban.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

And no I did not start the insults. You did.

No, you did.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It is a conspiracy if so many people were making false claims about the justifications for the war so they could pursue an economic interest.

Well, you think of a conspiracy as something that is hidden, or tried to be covered up. The facts in this matter are not hidden at all. I guess it's just that most people don't care. You don't have to look very hard for it. Most of it has been reported in mainstream media, and it's not very hard to find. I don't think most people who know about it care as long as they think it will keep gas prices cheap. Most people that I disagree with about the war wouldn't hesitate to admit that it is all for economic reasons, they just think that it is worth it, which I don't. The lies are politics, and serve to make anyone who doesn't know a thing about it, which obviously includes a large number of people, feel better. I wouldn't know how the ignorant vs. the uncaring are split, percentage-wise; but it doesn't really amount to a conspiracy.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I responded to your ad hominem point that I don't know history and don't know what I'm talking about. Stop playing innocent. It's not going to work.

I'm no logic major or whatever, knowing exactly what constitutes an ad hominem, but I was not launching a personal attack at you by saying you don't know what is going on. It seems obvious to me that you don't know the recent (last 30 years) history of what our government has done in the middle east. If you take that as an insult, I'm sorry, but I was just stating what I thought to be true, and why maybe you don't understand some of my points. I'm not trying to "play innocent", I really didn't realize why you had insulted me personally and claimed I started it. I understand now why you attacked me, because you were retaliating against a perceived insult, but that is not how it was meant; really. I still think that part of the problem may be a lack of historical perspective on your part. Again, not meant as an insult, just me saying what seems to be true and which is relevant to the argument.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Are you going to read what I write this time? Remember that it was the conglomeration of these reasons and that nobody in the administration claimed any one of these alone would have been used as a reason for war.

OK. I never saw you list them in order of importance, just refer to the "many reasons".

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

1. The Hussein regimes history of terrorism, one case in which they used WMD's, and their support of terrorist organizations and Palestinians suicide bombers, taken into consideration in light of the fact that six governments and the U.N. reported that they had stockpiles of WMD's. One less terrorist government means a whole lot less funding and less access to powerful weapons.

Hussein--our guy. Obviously our policy of allying with scum back-fired, just like with the Taliban. I know you agreed with this already, but it's kind of an important point. There were no WMD's; which we obviously knew, because we don't attack countries with WMD's.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

2. Continuation of Gulf War. The Hussein regime violated our ceasefire on several (terrorism) grounds for twelve years, and the stated consequence of noncompliance was overthrow.

We already talked about the reasons for the first gulf war, which Bush Ist wanted to happen, and most likely set Hussein up.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

3. Creation of large democracy in the heart of the Middle East. The idea is to create prosperity and education in a place where poverty and despair bred the suicide bomb mentality and to influence surrounding nations to move toward democracy once Iraq (and Afghanistan) becomes far superior economically and socially to the surrounding nations.

I don't think that is going to happen. You can't predict the future, so your opinion on the matter of whether it will work or not is no better than mine.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

4. To influence surrounding nations to comply with our anti-terrorism measures and to stay in check. Khadaffi of Libbya is a good example of where that worked.

Or else we will invade them too? Can't be done. We're 10 trillion dollars in debt, growing by 1.5 billion per day.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

4. To vacuum up as many potential terrorists as possible.

Yea right, at the same time as we are building a peaceful democratic society there. I don't know how you can say that with a straight face.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

5. The end of severe oppression and genocide is a great thing, and it is an excellent bonus in a war fought for also the other reasons.

Well we better get ready for some more debt, because it's going to cost a lot to do it for everyone.

UM, I have to assume you believe what you are saying, and not just giving people an opportunity to express their extreme unhappiness with our government, altho sometimes I wonder. I do thank you for the outlet. I think that you have an extremely simplistic viewpoint on this matter, and your arguments are based on opinion and speculation, rather than objective facts. Since a lot of what you are saying is based on what is supposed to happen in the future, I guess we'll see.

From Universal Mind
I disagree. I believe there are degrees of peace. There are several categories of when war can increase the overall peace in the long run. A population may or may not go down during the war (It depends on birth rate), but either way the overall peace can be greatly increased for the long run. Do you deny that that has ever happened? The Civil War ended slavery and united the country. The Revolutionary War gave us freedom from unfair English rulership. World War II prevented the Nazis from taking over the world and wiping out the majority of the human race. The list goes on. The fact that fewer people are living in the countries for the short term as a result of the war does not change the fact that the level of peace can be far greater than otherwise as a result of war.

For the sake of argument, I'll accept your idea that peace exists in degrees. Even so, there is an easily-reached, finite limit to how much peace there can be, and there is no reason to believe that war, in any circumstance, is a better method than peaceful means at creating more peace, except in an absurdly cynical world-view, where those who are left alive possess only one shared viewpoint. Furthermore, your argument seems to imply that, because peace comes after war, the war must have created the peace. Peace is the state of not being at war, so the fact that it should come afterwards is not surprising and does not show war's ability to create peace any more than it shows the ability of darkness to create light, especially when you make the "long term" qualification.

Your examples are of oppression and, once again, self-defense. I view oppression as a state of war between a government and its people, which makes fighting oppressors self-defense. The Civil War is a little more vague, since the Union was mainly fighting to reunite the country under a single government, not to emancipate the slaves(or else that would have been done as soon as the war started and the abomination of the Jim Crow laws never would have been allowed to stand). I think the slaves could have just as well been emancipated without war(as Britain had done), though that course may have been more difficult politically. The Civil War caused a deep rift, nonetheless, that took decades to heal. Blacks achieved equality a century afterward, not because the Civil War gave it to them in the 1860's, but because people like Martin Luther King and Lyndon Johnson were working toward civil rights through peaceful means, changing laws and challenging societal injustices instead of killing those who disagreed with them.

From Universal Mind
No, I don't think self-defense is the only justification for war. I believe in helping other nations, and I believe in preventing relatively greater disaster before it happens.

I don't think initiating a war helps anybody, especially not the nation invaded. Preventing a greater disaster is good, but using it as a justification for war automatically assumes that the disaster is more destructive than the war, that the disaster cannot be prevented except by war. I'm at a complete loss to figure out a disaster that fits such conditions. Nuclear terrorism seems like a good candidate at first, until one realizes that good diplomacy and political reconciliation have been used successfully for decades to diminish this threat.

As for helping a nation's people overthrow their government, it sounds simpler than it is. What do the citizens think? Would they support overthrow even if it killed their families? Could they do it more effectively themselves? Is it worth overthrowing the government, or would it be more harmful to let it stay in power? Does the government plan to kill tens of thousands of civilians if it is not overthrown? Will overthrowing the government cause wars in neighboring countries? What are the chances that an equally oppressive government will replace the old one? Will assisting in the overthrow of the government strengthen another oppressive government and harm its people?

Helping a group of people to defend themselves is a good cause. Many times, however, the result is not worth the destruction, as was the case in Afghanistan, where hundreds of thousands were killed in the name of stopping the Soviets, with the end result being an oppressive government with a different name, not to mention the fact that those we supported turned against us later. How many modern democracies were spawned by American-led government upheavals?

Those who defend themselves act most within their rights and with the most clarity as to what the situation demands. We may give them support with provisions, and even weaponry at times. Unfortunately, our army is ill-equipped to fight someone else's revolution except in very limited circumstances, where political nuances are insignificant and those who will take over afterward are trustworthy among us and their own people. If those circumstances are not met, the utility of having an army remain to act as peace-keepers is usually very low.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

1) Your "trashing" is someone else's truth-telling. That is just your opinion. And sorry to be so "negative"--we can't all be as positive as you that war is absolutely the right thing to do.

2) Why do you keep bringing up the fact that under a totalitarian goverment I wouldn't have the right to free speech? It is not relevant to the current conversation, unless you think the terrorists are going to take over our government sometime soon. I don't get your point. Are you trying to say that because in the past we have fought wars that appeared to be justified, any war now is? Are you saying that if we didn't keep the Soviets out of Afghanistan, we would be under their control now? I just don't know why you say that, I'm not "beating a dead horse".

You equated spreading democracy with spreading totalitarianism. I pointed out some of the major differences.

I think now would be a good time for you to drop the argument about "trashing". It is beside the point. I was not bitching at you for doing it. I trash our government sometimes too, as I have said and as you have seen. It is not an important point in this conversation. What is relevant is that people are not permitted to speak against their own totalitarian governments, and that is one reason democracy is superior to totalitarianism.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

OK, I found some stuff about the pipeline. That's a start. It's not really a secret, so you can find much more about it if you look, in case you don't like these sources.

http://www.ringnebula.com/Oil/Timeline.htm
http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=234
http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/afghanistan.asp
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/12.30A.afgh.pipe.htm

The pipleline is not a secret. However, if allying with the Afghans against the Soviets were 100% about the pipleline, it would go against the stated rationale and would be a secret. The mission would have been sinister and completely deceptive and have involved a lot of people. That would make it a conspiracy.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

1And while I'm at it, I'll correct something that I said earlier. I said that the Bush administration gave the Taliban something like a million dollars in the spring of 2001--I was way off. They gave $43 million to them in May 2001, for a total of $124 million that year.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30166

I would not have supported that.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

How much do they cherish religious freedom? Or is that not necessary for a democracy? How can they "cherish" an institution they've never known and is not part of their culture?

Yes, religious freedom should be part of a democracy. Why did you bring that up?

People can cherish freedom simply by knowing what it is. And they do. As I said, the people of Iraq (and Afghanistan by the way) vote in higher percentages than we do, despite the death threats. Address that point this time.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

OK, you may disagree with them on that point, but when you say that disagreeing with them about a war is "trashing" them it tends to make you sound like you'd just about go along with anything they said, if they told you it was the right thing to do.

I think my use of that word has offended you more than anything else that has offended anybody on this site. It was not an insult. I am shocked that you don't admit that it's true. You boldly dog U.S. policy and say the worst things imaginable about it, and then you get severely offended when I say you are trashing the government. I wasn't saying you should never do that or that you should not have a right to do it. I do it too. It's okay. I'm sick of this subject over a word I used and not the differences between democracy and totalitarianism. You completely sidetracked that issue over a very bizarre reason to be offended.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

See if you still think that after you learn about the real reasons for our planned invasion, which preceded 9/11. The only reason to keep the Soviets out was to keep the area safe for our oil interests--that is all. If you admit it's all been for oil, you may very well agree that we should have sided with the Taliban.

No, that is not "all". We were preventing Soviet expansion, just like when we fought their puppet North Vietnam and pulled operations in Central America. If by some stretch of an insane universe it really was "all" about oil, it is an interesting coincidence that the government just happened to be doing something that needed to be done for Cold War purposes.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

No, you did.

No, you did.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

1Well, you think of a conspiracy as something that is hidden, or tried to be covered up. The facts in this matter are not hidden at all. I guess it's just that most people don't care. You don't have to look very hard for it. Most of it has been reported in mainstream media, and it's not very hard to find. I don't think most people who know about it care as long as they think it will keep gas prices cheap. Most people that I disagree with about the war wouldn't hesitate to admit that it is all for economic reasons, they just think that it is worth it, which I don't. The lies are politics, and serve to make anyone who doesn't know a thing about it, which obviously includes a large number of people, feel better. I wouldn't know how the ignorant vs. the uncaring are split, percentage-wise; but it doesn't really amount to a conspiracy.

The fact that something may be a factor does not mean it is the ONLY factor. Why do you assume it is? Just like with the Cold War measures, our War on Terror measures are necessary also, even if people benefit economically from them and even if economics are a major consideration. What we are doing is necessary. You should admit that there is at least some merit to the arguments for it.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I'm no logic major or whatever, knowing exactly what constitutes an ad hominem, but I was not launching a personal attack at you by saying you don't know what is going on. It seems obvious to me that you don't know the recent (last 30 years) history of what our government has done in the middle east. If you take that as an insult, I'm sorry, but I was just stating what I thought to be true, and why maybe you don't understand some of my points. I'm not trying to "play innocent", I really didn't realize why you had insulted me personally and claimed I started it. I understand now why you attacked me, because you were retaliating against a perceived insult, but that is not how it was meant; really. I still think that part of the problem may be a lack of historical perspective on your part. Again, not meant as an insult, just me saying what seems to be true and which is relevant to the argument.

For future reference, talking to people in that way is insulting. It is also insulting to tell people that everybody who agrees with them is either ignorant or apathetic. What you need to try doing is talking about the issues and not me. If you can do that, I will do it too. But I am not going to be nice if you insult my level of knowledge or my intentions. This is a debate about U.S. foreign policy, not ME.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Hussein--our guy. Obviously our policy of allying with scum back-fired, just like with the Taliban. I know you agreed with this already, but it's kind of an important point. There were no WMD's; which we obviously knew, because we don't attack countries with WMD's.

It would have been irresponsible of us not to act on the WMD intelligence that came from six governments and the U.N., and not finding something does not prove that it never existed. When missing children are not found, does it mean they never existed?

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

We already talked about the reasons for the first gulf war, which Bush Ist wanted to happen, and most likely set Hussein up.

Kuwait had been taken over by the despiccably evil Hussein regime. Even if Saddam's reporter was telling the truth (which there is SOME reason to doubt) and the Bush 41 administration invited it to happen, the Hussein regime had no business taking over the nation of Kuwait.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I don't think that is going to happen. You can't predict the future, so your opinion on the matter of whether it will work or not is no better than mine.

Sit back, drink a few Lite beers from Miller, and watch what happens. I hope you are prepared for good news on down the road.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Or else we will invade them too? Can't be done. We're 10 trillion dollars in debt, growing by 1.5 billion per day.

You are talking about something I never said.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Yea right, at the same time as we are building a peaceful democratic society there. I don't know how you can say that with a straight face.

The terrorist vacuum is part of the transition phase. The peaceful democratic society is part of the rest of human existence on Earth.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Well we better get ready for some more debt, because it's going to cost a lot to do it for everyone.

Not everyone has such a conglomeration of justifications. I said before listing that reason that the war has not been about any one of those listings. It is about the totality of them. I said that ahead of time because I anticipated a point about how any one of those reasons are supposed to stand alone as justification. So again, that is not the case.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

UM, I have to assume you believe what you are saying, and not just giving people an opportunity to express their extreme unhappiness with our government, altho sometimes I wonder. I do thank you for the outlet. I think that you have an extremely simplistic viewpoint on this matter, and your arguments are based on opinion and speculation, rather than objective facts. Since a lot of what you are saying is based on what is supposed to happen in the future, I guess we'll see.

You are wrong about that. I believe the war is about many things, and I have used logic to explain that. You keep saying it is "all" about ONE thing, and you never back up that claim. So who has the more simplistic view?

Originally Posted by R.D.735

For the sake of argument, I'll accept your idea that peace exists in degrees. Even so, there is an easily-reached, finite limit to how much peace there can be, and there is no reason to believe that war, in any circumstance, is a better method than peaceful means at creating more peace, except in an absurdly cynical world-view, where those who are left alive possess only one shared viewpoint.

No, democracy is not about one shared viewpoint. It is about the freedom of the people to have many viewpoints. Think about the diversity of viewpoints in the United States. It's enormous.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Furthermore, your argument seems to imply that, because peace comes after war, the war must have created the peace. Peace is the state of not being at war, so the fact that it should come afterwards is not surprising and does not show war's ability to create peace any more than it shows the ability of darkness to create light, especially when you make the "long term" qualification.

So the involvement of the Allied Powers in World War II did not have anything to do with why the Nazis failed in their attempt to take over the world and kill all non-whites? The Revolutionary War was unnecessary because we would have been freely given our independence? The slaves would have freed themselves? I do not believe so.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Your examples are of oppression and, once again, self-defense. I view oppression as a state of war between a government and its people, which makes fighting oppressors self-defense. The Civil War is a little more vague, since the Union was mainly fighting to reunite the country under a single government, not to emancipate the slaves(or else that would have been done as soon as the war started and the abomination of the Jim Crow laws never would have been allowed to stand). I think the slaves could have just as well been emancipated without war(as Britain had done), though that course may have been more difficult politically. The Civil War caused a deep rift, nonetheless, that took decades to heal. Blacks achieved equality a century afterward, not because the Civil War gave it to them in the 1860's, but because people like Martin Luther King and Lyndon Johnson were working toward civil rights through peaceful means, changing laws and challenging societal injustices instead of killing those who disagreed with them.

Okay, call it self-defense. That is a semantic argument. But it is not always ourselves we are defending directly, and we are not always attacked first when we fight justifiably.

Most of the Union soldiers were fighting to end slavery, but even more than that they were fighting to unify the country. However, without the war, we very well might still have slavery in my nation of the Confederacy. (Well actually, I would have moved out a long time ago.)

Originally Posted by R.D.735

I don't think initiating a war helps anybody, especially not the nation invaded. Preventing a greater disaster is good, but using it as a justification for war automatically assumes that the disaster is more destructive than the war, that the disaster cannot be prevented except by war. I'm at a complete loss to figure out a disaster that fits such conditions. Nuclear terrorism seems like a good candidate at first, until one realizes that good diplomacy and political reconciliation have been used successfully for decades to diminish this threat.

All of those factors are taken into consideration.

As for diplomacy with Islamofascists, don't ever count on it to work. The difference between them and the other walks of life we have dealt with is that Islamofascists seek their own deaths. You cannot reason with somebody like that, especially when they have already shown their absolute refusal to budge.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

As for helping a nation's people overthrow their government, it sounds simpler than it is. What do the citizens think? Would they support overthrow even if it killed their families? Could they do it more effectively themselves? Is it worth overthrowing the government, or would it be more harmful to let it stay in power? Does the government plan to kill tens of thousands of civilians if it is not overthrown? Will overthrowing the government cause wars in neighboring countries? What are the chances that an equally oppressive government will replace the old one? Will assisting in the overthrow of the government strengthen another oppressive government and harm its people?

All of those factors are taken into consideration.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Helping a group of people to defend themselves is a good cause. Many times, however, the result is not worth the destruction, as was the case in Afghanistan, where hundreds of thousands were killed in the name of stopping the Soviets, with the end result being an oppressive government with a different name, not to mention the fact that those we supported turned against us later. How many modern democracies were spawned by American-led government upheavals?

The war in Afghanistan was not all about Afghanistan. It was about defeating the Soviets and deterring their expansion efforts as well as further expanding the arms race one more notch so we could eventually cripple them financially so the government would collapse. It worked, and it was worth it.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Those who defend themselves act most within their rights and with the most clarity as to what the situation demands. We may give them support with provisions, and even weaponry at times. Unfortunately, our army is ill-equipped to fight someone else's revolution except in very limited circumstances, where political nuances are insignificant and those who will take over afterward are trustworthy among us and their own people. If those circumstances are not met, the utility of having an army remain to act as peace-keepers is usually very low.

There is always a lot to consider.