Thread: Why Terrorism Exists

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.

So let me see if I get this straight, because you can't argue that this Nation has acted justly, you're saying just wait 30 years? Yeah, similar decisions were made 30 years ago that are being made now, let's see what's ended up happening since.

Nations that received our intervention under the guise of anti-communism were replaced by governments that brutalized their own citizens. Only Nations that ere able to gain real rebellious movements against the death-squads we funded were able to shake free from the tyranny we exported to keep money funneled into our borders.

So no thanks, none of us here want to wait another 30 years for atrocities to take place, we'd rather study history, see the exact same things are being set up now, and take action to stop it.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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.

So they are not even civilized at this point? And when have they ever compromised except when they had a dictator to force them to? One sect comes out on top in those places. Why all of a sudden would the most violently fundamentalist religious people in the world decide to get along? That's the whole problem!

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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.

We'll see I guess. Would you say that a lack of freedom of religion in the country will be a failure of democracy? Or if they kill and suppress all of the minority and then have elections in which they elect fundamentalists, like in Iran, will that be a success?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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

I decided it was called for.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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.

I don't dispute it at all, where did you get that idea? Oh, I definitely think that they have done all of those things, and I don't think it just about this war. I think it all the way back to when they killed the Indians. Our government has been bloody from the start, and we are the beneficiaries of it. That doesn't mean people shouldn't stand up and say it should stop now, and it doesn't mean people should say, "Well, you wouldn't be able to be sitting there trashing the government if we hadn't killed the Indians, so quit complaining." It should be recognized and mistakes should be learned from.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I don't think we lost in Vietnam.

Oh, we lost, believe me. I don't know what alternative history you are going by, but the communists took over the country. I knew a woman who lived there as a girl when it happened--it was fascinating to hear her describe what happened. It wasn't good for them.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The score was like 3 million to 58 thousand.

We don't keep a "score" of body counts to determine the winners and losers of wars anymore.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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.

I believe the term used is "police action".

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The North Vietnamese never surrendered, but we tore them to shreds and ended up winning the Cold War.

We must not have shredded them too bad, because they came south and took over the whole country. UM, we did not win the cold war because we killed more N. Vietamese than they killed Americans. That is absolutely ridiculous. The communists won in Vietnam and adjacent countries. Communism collapsed because of extreme corruption and economic inefficiency, in both Russia and Vietnam, and that was that.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I know you are, but what am I?

I'm rubber, you're glue.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I think it was beneficial to the entire world.

Is it beneficial to all the American soldiers who died there?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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

Ok...I think the proof is what we didn't find there, whether or not it is proven to you.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I consider the whole world my country.

That's weird, and somewhat disturbing. So would you sell out the American part of your country if it benefitted a larger part of your country, say the Chinese part?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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?

My whole argument has backed up that claim. Remember the plan to invade Afghanistan, the pipeline, Taliban as our allies, Saddam as our buddy, Saddam as our enemy, etc. etc.? You don't need "logic" to back it up, just read about the events, they speak for themself. I wouldn't call the motivation for acquiring huge amounts of money "simplistic"; it's more like a law of nature.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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

Oh, I'll be here, don't worry about that. Maybe we can keep arguing about it til then.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

So let me see if I get this straight, because you can't argue that this Nation has acted justly, you're saying just wait 30 years?

Not at all. I have made a lot of arguments, and I have also said let's come back here in 30 years and talk about what ended up happening.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

So they are not even civilized at this point? And when have they ever compromised except when they had a dictator to force them to? One sect comes out on top in those places. Why all of a sudden would the most violently fundamentalist religious people in the world decide to get along? That's the whole problem!

They are nowhere near as civilized as they are going to be. We are trying to change the climate for the coming generations.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

We'll see I guess. Would you say that a lack of freedom of religion in the country will be a failure of democracy? Or if they kill and suppress all of the minority and then have elections in which they elect fundamentalists, like in Iran, will that be a success?

No, that would be terrible. But I would also say it would not be permanent.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I don't dispute it at all, where did you get that idea? Oh, I definitely think that they have done all of those things, and I don't think it just about this war. I think it all the way back to when they killed the Indians. Our government has been bloody from the start, and we are the beneficiaries of it. That doesn't mean people shouldn't stand up and say it should stop now, and it doesn't mean people should say, "Well, you wouldn't be able to be sitting there trashing the government if we hadn't killed the Indians, so quit complaining." It should be recognized and mistakes should be learned from.

Again, I was just pointing out the differences between democracy and totalitiarianism.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Oh, we lost, believe me. I don't know what alternative history you are going by, but the communists took over the country. I knew a woman who lived there as a girl when it happened--it was fascinating to hear her describe what happened. It wasn't good for them.

Like I said, North Vietnam did not surrender. However, they did not outgun us by any stretch of the imagination.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

We don't keep a "score" of body counts to determine the winners and losers of wars anymore.

I was just saying we outpowered them many fold. We just pulled out without their surrender because of political pressure. I think maybe we should have put much more energy into killing Ho Chi Minh.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

We must not have shredded them too bad, because they came south and took over the whole country. UM, we did not win the cold war because we killed more N. Vietamese than they killed Americans. That is absolutely ridiculous. The communists won in Vietnam and adjacent countries. Communism collapsed because of extreme corruption and economic inefficiency, in both Russia and Vietnam, and that was that.

They never surrendered.

Showing what we are willing to do and what we are willing to endure to oppose Soviet expansion did have a lot to do with why we won the Cold War, and our action in Vietnam was a major expression of that. Perhaps that is why we did not simply kill Ho Chi Minh or easily win the war with nukes.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Is it beneficial to all the American soldiers who died there?

Beneficial to their populations.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Ok...I think the proof is what we didn't find there, whether or not it is proven to you.

So if a child is missing, the child never existed?

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

That's weird, and somewhat disturbing. So would you sell out the American part of your country if it benefitted a larger part of your country, say the Chinese part?

You would need to be much more specific.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

My whole argument has backed up that claim. Remember the plan to invade Afghanistan, the pipeline, Taliban as our allies, Saddam as our buddy, Saddam as our enemy, etc. etc.? You don't need "logic" to back it up, just read about the events, they speak for themself. I wouldn't call the motivation for acquiring huge amounts of money "simplistic"; it's more like a law of nature.

That is not what I said is simplistic. What is simplistic is the idea that because one motivation was apparently behind an action it was the ONLY motivation behind the action.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Oh, I'll be here, don't worry about that. Maybe we can keep arguing about it til then.

You are going to change your mind in the next fifteen years.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

They are nowhere near as civilized as they are going to be. We are trying to change the climate for the coming generations.

No, that would be terrible. But I would also say it would not be permanent.

You're predicting an unlikely future. Why are you so convinced that this is going to work? I don't understand where you get this unlimited confidence that everything is soon going to be so wonderful there.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Like I said, North Vietnam did not surrender. However, they did not outgun us by any stretch of the imagination.

I was just saying we outpowered them many fold. We just pulled out without their surrender because of political pressure. I think maybe we should have put much more energy into killing Ho Chi Minh.

They never surrendered.

Showing what we are willing to do and what we are willing to endure to oppose Soviet expansion did have a lot to do with why we won the Cold War, and our action in Vietnam was a major expression of that. Perhaps that is why we did not simply kill Ho Chi Minh or easily win the war with nukes.

You are in serious denial about what happened in Vietnam. We lost. The communists took over. It's too soon to re-write the history; too many people still know what happened. Wait a few more decades.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Beneficial to their populations.

Yea, their kids will be thanking them for all the debt they'll be paying back to the Chinese for the rest of their lives. The war is not beneficial to our population. It's beneficial to a few people's wallets.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So if a child is missing, the child never existed?

What does that mean? Why don't we attack N. Korea? Because they have WMD. Why did we attack Iraq? Because they didn't, and we knew it.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You would need to be much more specific.

So you admit there are circumstances in which you would sell out America to the Chinese. You must be friends with the Clintons.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You are going to change your mind in the next fifteen years.

I seriously doubt it....

It is very strange to me how convinced you are that this will "work". What could possibly cause you to think that those people are suddenly going to start getting along and have an non-corrupt, democratic society? It's beyond ludicrous. We need a good dictator to install in there. Oh wait, we had one, what happened? (That's sarcasm).

You have no answer to that because you can't predict the future. It's just rhetorical.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

You're predicting an unlikely future. Why are you so convinced that this is going to work? I don't understand where you get this unlimited confidence that everything is soon going to be so wonderful there.

Because with democracy comes economic freedom. With economic freedom comes a booming economy. With a booming economy comes a civilized culture. You must think Iraqi people are inevitably going to suck and that nothing can be done about it. We are very different in that way. I have a lot of belief in human potential. I have seen what Western nations can become, and I believe that in time the Middle East can do what we have done.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

You are in serious denial about what happened in Vietnam. We lost. The communists took over. It's too soon to re-write the history; too many people still know what happened. Wait a few more decades.

Did you read the details of what I said about that? Respond to them if you did.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Yea, their kids will be thanking them for all the debt they'll be paying back to the Chinese for the rest of their lives. The war is not beneficial to our population. It's beneficial to a few people's wallets.

Increased stability in the Middle East is good for the world. The taking down of two terrorist governments is great for the world, and we have already accomplished that.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

What does that mean? Why don't we attack N. Korea? Because they have WMD. Why did we attack Iraq? Because they didn't, and we knew it.

I will say it yet again. Not being able to find something does not prove that it never existed.

North Korea does not meet the same list of circumstances the Hussein regime met. I am having to tell you so many things multiple times.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

So you admit there are circumstances in which you would sell out America to the Chinese. You must be friends with the Clintons.

Oh really? So, hypothetically, if I favor a 1% tax increase in the United States or give away a minor military secret to end all starvation in China, I am like the Clintons? Every decision should involve a cost/benefit analysis. I am willing to sacrifice to help China when the cost/benefit scales are tipped the right way. I don't see my country as the only country in the world that matters. The whole world matters to me. How about you?

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I seriously doubt it....

It is very strange to me how convinced you are that this will "work". What could possibly cause you to think that those people are suddenly going to start getting along and have an non-corrupt, democratic society? It's beyond ludicrous. We need a good dictator to install in there. Oh wait, we had one, what happened? (That's sarcasm).

You have no answer to that because you can't predict the future. It's just rhetorical.

I have no answer? Observe your incorrectness (yet again)... I don't think it will be sudden. I think it will happen over time. Their business climate and economy will improve due to new economic freedoms. That will greatly clean up the economy and provide education incentives. The result of that is increased civilization, which decreases the suicide bomber mentality climate and serves as an influence to the surrounding nations.

The Middle East recently began its great revolution, and we got it started. It is going to stop being a third world Hell hole, and it is going to become a productive and high class part of the world. Bush is going to go down in history as the person who began the revolution, and the future Middle East will always be very grateful for it and will always frown on those who tried to stop it from happening.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Because with democracy comes economic freedom. With economic freedom comes a booming economy. With a booming economy comes a civilized culture. You must think Iraqi people are inevitably going to suck and that nothing can be done about it. We are very different in that way. I have a lot of belief in human potential. I have seen what Western nations can become, and I believe that in time the Middle East can do what we have done.

Speculations, predictions, fortune telling.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Did you read the details of what I said about that? Respond to them if you did.

UM, I really don't know how to respond to someone who thinks we won the Vietnam war because we killed more of them than they did of us, and also we could have nuked them but didn't. Maybe I'm tired, but I really can't think of a response to such ridiculous statements.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I will say it yet again. Not being able to find something does not prove that it never existed.

Well, you know, it does tend to make you think something isn't there when they look for years in a limited area and never come up with anything. OK, can't prove a negative, that's true. We'll never know even if we search that country inch by inch.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

North Korea does not meet the same list of circumstances the Hussein regime met. I am having to tell you so many things multiple times.

You're right, they're dangerous.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Oh really? So, hypothetically, if I favor a 1% tax increase in the United States or give away a minor military secret to end all starvation in China, I am like the Clintons? Every decision should involve a cost/benefit analysis. I am willing to sacrifice to help China when the cost/benefit scales are tipped the right way. I don't see my country as the only country in the world that matters. The whole world matters to me. How about you?

No, I don't think it is the only country that matters, that's why I don't think we should start wars.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I have no answer? Observe your incorrectness (yet again)... I don't think it will be sudden. I think it will happen over time. Their business climate and economy will improve due to new economic freedoms. That will greatly clean up the economy and provide education incentives. The result of that is increased civilization, which decreases the suicide bomber mentality climate and serves as an influence to the surrounding nations.

Reading tea leaves again.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The Middle East recently began its great revolution, and we got it started. It is going to stop being a third world Hell hole, and it is going to become a productive and high class part of the world. Bush is going to go down in history as the person who began the revolution, and the future Middle East will always be very grateful for it and will always frown on those who tried to stop it from happening.

And they all lived happily ever after! You should get a job at the White House. It almost sounds like you believe that crap!

Good night.

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

If the Iranians had halted their nuclear program out of fear of the US, is that supposed to indicate that they will continue to pursue nuclear weapons regardless of the costs to themselves or the region? If you are correct, the US didn't have to attack Iran in order to stop its nuclear program, it only had to give Iran a good reason to stop, a huge negative disincentive(of course, Iran was well aware that an attack would likely cause a regional war and widespread chaos, but chose not to gamble on the idea that the administration was sane). Similarly, Kim Jong Il agreed to phase out his nuclear program when the US offered some positive incentives.

However, your reasoning is most certainly flawed. If Iran halted its nuclear program out of fear, it makes absolutely no sense that it would halt the program without informing the US government and allowing UN inspectors to come in and testify to the action. Iran clearly had other motives in mind, which were alluded to in the IAE.

From Universal Mind
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.
...
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.

The world was even luckier? It's not very reassuring that we're basing our decisions about whether the world should continue to exist or perish in a blazing nuclear holocaust on mere chance. Would you have supported an active military confrontation with Russia because they probably wouldn't use their nuclear weapons for fear of our own? It would have toppled the Soviet Union even faster, wouldn't it?

In regards to your other point:

Do you think the entire rest of the planet could put up no defense? Afghanistan did pretty well with the support of the US. Multiply that effect by the number of even more developed countries around at the time and you have the effective resistance of the rest of the developed world, more than enough to cripple the Soviet Union.

I'll still grant you the small possibility that it could have happened, though with the qualifier that we will never know if it's possible for a country to take over the world by aggressive means until some country actually does it. We do know, however, that no one has succeeded yet, and many have tried, even when they were unopposed by an equally large army. It's more difficult than you make it seem.

From Universal Mind
Exactly. My hypothesis is that the Hussein regime knew we were coming and had plenty of time to hide the weapons. There is no telling where they ended up if they existed, which they probably did. I know that something had six governments and the U.N. reporting their existence, and something had to be done based on what was apparent.

I couldn't help but notice this. Could you provide a link that shows the UN reporting their existence? I have strong suspicions that they didn't:

from http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...2-un-wmd_x.htm

U.N. reports submitted to the Security Council before the war by Hans Blix, former chief U.N. arms inspector, and Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency, have been largely validated by U.S. weapons teams. The common findings:

Iraq's nuclear weapons program was dormant.

No evidence was found to suggest Iraq possessed chemical or biological weapons. U.N. officials believe the weapons were destroyed by U.N. inspectors or Iraqi officials in the years after the 1991 Gulf War.