Thread: Why Terrorism Exists

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.

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 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.

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.

From Universal Mind
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.

Have you heard about the IAE? The Intelligence Agency Estimate released just days ago indicates that Iran halted its nuclear program in 2003 because of economic and political pressure. It appears that your opinion needs to be updated.

From Universal Mind
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.

It's a good thing they didn't view our actions in support of the insurgency as an act of war and attack us, isn't it?

On the plus side, it hastened Soviet Russia's inevitable demise, right? Well, except for the fact that Russia's financial troubles made maintaining and guarding its stockpiles of nuclear weapons very difficult, and it wasn't as if the US was picking up their slack. We were very lucky that nuclear weapons didn't end up in bad hands.

War is a gamble in many cases. Sometimes you win, and it's 'worth it,' and sometimes you lose everything. Afghanistan lost everything. Russia lost everything. The US won. It was a strategic victory, sure, but the escalation of the cold war put the entire world at greater risk. It was 'worth it' because we were lucky. Luck doesn't make for good policy. It tends to run out when it's needed most.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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

It's not what I think about the relative merits of the two systems, it's the way the methods used and how it is perceived by the people on whom they are being "spread". That's what matters.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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.

Of course I totally agree with that.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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.

I think the government spins things, and while not actually covering the truth up completely, obscures the issue to make it more palatable to the public.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I would not have supported that.

But you said that you did support our alliance with the Taliban. I guess you mean after the Soviets were out of there.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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

Because that is what a lot of the fighting and killing that is going on in Iraq is about. Each sect wants to make sure it comes out on top, and it's religious rules enforced. What are the odds of religion not being a major part of their legal system? Will you still consider that to be a success of democracy?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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.

Well, I imagine it's because they want to make sure that their own religious candidate comes out on top, so they can immediately enforce their religious rules and oppress any minorities.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I think my use of that word has offended you more than anything else that has offended anybody on this site.

UM, I doubt that! Nothing else you have said offended me at all; we are just having a discussion; this is for fun, why else would I do it? But when you said that I was "trashing our government", I admit I did get offended. I couldn't believe that you would be suggesting that I was out of line by for saying what I thought. I won't bring it up again, I promise, you've explained that you didn't really mean it the way I took it.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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.

Hopefully you see now why I was offended over that. To be having a conversation like this and be told that my viewpoint is insulting to the government--well, it's kind of strange to be arguing over how freedom is being spread and then have it be implied I should keep my opinions to myself concerning the government. I don't think I am saying the worse things imaginable about it. I am not in favor of armed revolution, I don't think we should start killing the Republicrats responsible for this--that would be worse, no? I just think people should be aware of what's going on, that's all.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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.

But we lost in Vietnam, and look at them now. We "won" in Afghanistan, and look at what happened. When will we learn our lesson?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

No, you did.

You.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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.

It's just that it's economically beneficial only to a few, and detrimental to the country as a whole. The are screwing the young people of this country. You don't buy things without paying for them; that is just common sense, and it is not how they are running the country.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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.

OK, I don't mean to be insulting, and I know it's hard to talk about either religion or politics without doing it. Foreign policy is based on a lot of things, and it helps to know something about it, which I admit I am certainly not an expert on.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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?

Our government totally knew what was going on over there. They are not that stupid.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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.

So what? Not our business, except we did give him permission. Kuwait was not exactly a lovely free country, it was originally a part of Iraq, and had control of the ports, and broke a treaty that it had signed with Iraq.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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

Yuk. I hope you're right, I really do. Don't you think I think it would be better if the middle east was democratic? I just don't think it will happen.

Well you are making me late for work again! Gotta go.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Have you heard about the IAE? The Intelligence Agency Estimate released just days ago indicates that Iran halted its nuclear program in 2003 because of economic and political pressure. It appears that your opinion needs to be updated.

R.D., what else happened in 2003? Update your consideration of that.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

It's a good thing they didn't view our actions in support of the insurgency as an act of war and attack us, isn't it?

They knew better than that. It's a good thing we deterred the Soviet Union from further expansion and used the arms race to make their socialist system hurry up and collapse.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

On the plus side, it hastened Soviet Russia's inevitable demise, right? Well, except for the fact that Russia's financial troubles made maintaining and guarding its stockpiles of nuclear weapons very difficult, and it wasn't as if the US was picking up their slack. We were very lucky that nuclear weapons didn't end up in bad hands.

Yes, we were, but the entire world was even luckier that the Soviet Union did not end up taking over the world, which they would have done if it had not been for the United States.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

War is a gamble in many cases. Sometimes you win, and it's 'worth it,' and sometimes you lose everything. Afghanistan lost everything. Russia lost everything. The US won. It was a strategic victory, sure, but the escalation of the cold war put the entire world at greater risk. It was 'worth it' because we were lucky. Luck doesn't make for good policy. It tends to run out when it's needed most.

We could not afford to not take on the Soviets like we did. The world could not afford it.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

It's not what I think about the relative merits of the two systems, it's the way the methods used and how it is perceived by the people on whom they are being "spread". That's what matters.

The vast differences between the two systems make the spreading of one far more justifiable than the other. It is the difference between rescuing hostages and taking hostages.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I think the government spins things, and while not actually covering the truth up completely, obscures the issue to make it more palatable to the public.

No matter how the government might have spun anything, the Soviets had to be taken on every time they tried to take over a country.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

But you said that you did support our alliance with the Taliban. I guess you mean after the Soviets were out of there.

I am talking about the Afghan fighters that later evolved into the Taliban and while they were at war with the Soviets. I don't agree with any support they were given in this decade.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Because that is what a lot of the fighting and killing that is going on in Iraq is about. Each sect wants to make sure it comes out on top, and it's religious rules enforced. What are the odds of religion not being a major part of their legal system? Will you still consider that to be a success of democracy?

I think they will become civilized enough to understand that religious compromise is going to be necessary. If not, they are still much better off than they would be with no democracy at all. So is the rest of the world.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Well, I imagine it's because they want to make sure that their own religious candidate comes out on top, so they can immediately enforce their religious rules and oppress any minorities.

In every case? Even if that is the case for pretty much all of them, which I don't think it is, look at how much they value the democratic means of voicing their opinions and decisions. They could not do that before we got them to that point.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

UM, I doubt that! Nothing else you have said offended me at all; we are just having a discussion; this is for fun, why else would I do it? But when you said that I was "trashing our government", I admit I did get offended. I couldn't believe that you would be suggesting that I was out of line by for saying what I thought. I won't bring it up again, I promise, you've explained that you didn't really mean it the way I took it.

Trashing the government is fine when it is called for. Like I said, I do it too.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Hopefully you see now why I was offended over that. To be having a conversation like this and be told that my viewpoint is insulting to the government--well, it's kind of strange to be arguing over how freedom is being spread and then have it be implied I should keep my opinions to myself concerning the government. I don't think I am saying the worse things imaginable about it. I am not in favor of armed revolution, I don't think we should start killing the Republicrats responsible for this--that would be worse, no? I just think people should be aware of what's going on, that's all.

I didn't think whether or not you were insulting the government was even in dispute. I thought you were boldly knowing damn well you were doing it. You were not saying the worst things imaginable about what should be done to the government, but you were saying the worst things imaginable about what they have supposedly done. By saying they have killed masses of people purely for financial gain, you are saying the worst that can be said of them, except for saying they have done the same thing to an even greater extent. But again, if that is what you think, then say it. You know what I have to say about the war on drugs.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

But we lost in Vietnam, and look at them now. We "won" in Afghanistan, and look at what happened. When will we learn our lesson?

I don't think we lost in Vietnam. The score was like 3 million to 58 thousand. That score played an important role in slowing and finally stopping Soviet expansionism. That was the idea. Vietnman is called a war, but it was really just a Cold War battle. The North Vietnamese never surrendered, but we tore them to shreds and ended up winning the Cold War.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

You.

I know you are, but what am I?

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

It's just that it's economically beneficial only to a few, and detrimental to the country as a whole. The are screwing the young people of this country. You don't buy things without paying for them; that is just common sense, and it is not how they are running the country.

I think it was beneficial to the entire world.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

OK, I don't mean to be insulting, and I know it's hard to talk about either religion or politics without doing it. Foreign policy is based on a lot of things, and it helps to know something about it, which I admit I am certainly not an expert on.

Peace and flowers.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Our government totally knew what was going on over there. They are not that stupid.

So there was a six government and U.N. conspiracy going on? That has not been proven to me.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

So what? Not our business, except we did give him permission. Kuwait was not exactly a lovely free country, it was originally a part of Iraq, and had control of the ports, and broke a treaty that it had signed with Iraq.

I consider the whole world my country.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Yuk. I hope you're right, I really do. Don't you think I think it would be better if the middle east was democratic? I just don't think it will happen.

Remember to meet me here in 30 years so we can talk about what ended up happening.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Well you are making me late for work again! Gotta go.

That's the object.