Thread: Why Terrorism Exists

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.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Speculations, predictions, fortune telling.

No, true economic principle that has worked in the past. Are we still living in our Wild Wild West phase and having duels constantly and putting holes in people's heads to let the demons out when they are mentally ill? No. The Industrial Revolution pulled us out of that level. The third world is relatively ignorant and irrational, and prosperous nations are much more worldly knowledgable, rational, and civilized. I want that for the Middle East. Do you?

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

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.

You keep sticking to the surface and not responding to the details. North Vietnam did not surrender, but we did express our endurance and determination for Cold War purposes and ended up winning the Cold War. That is not a simple statement that we "won" Vietnam. You said we "lost", and I said things are not so simple. What I said is a deeper analysis of the significance of what happened. You are welcome to respond to that any time you think you are ready.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

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

Even if those wars work very much for the greater good of that nation's future and the future of the world? Plus, the current war in Iraq is a continuation of the Gulf War, not a preemptive war. The Hussein regime violated the ceasefire conditions of the 1991 war.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Reading tea leaves again.

Not responding to my details again.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

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

They have not gotten to the level I am talking about yet. It will take a very long time. I don't think it will be a rose garden any way. No country is perfect. We are not at a point in evolution in which humans are capable of living in total harmony. I still think things can be vastly improved. It has happened in the past. Why do you think Japan has become such an incredibly great country since World War II? You know how they were back then. They are an awesome country now because we rewrote their constitution.

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.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

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.

Iran and North Korea love to bark and act tough, but the truth is that they are scared out of their minds of the United States. The will to stay safe while looking tough and defiant on the surface is what they are about.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

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.

They wanted to not be caught with such a program, but they did not want to look like sissies by reporting to the U.S. that they were doing as the U.S. wished. My response to your first paragraphy explains their behavior.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

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?

There was a lot to consider, and the last thing we wanted was a nuclear holocaust. I never said we should have had a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. I think we handled the situation extremely well.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

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.

No, it is not logical to multiply "that effect" by the number of even more developed countries. Afghanistan had the help of the United States. Plus, at what point would the rest of the world have started fighting? They didn't do anything when the U.S.S.R. tried to take over Afghanistan or when North Vietnam took over South Vietnam. Look at how far Hitler got, and look at how quickly he got there. Without the U.S., most of the rest of the world would have done nothing for a long time, and then it would have been too late. Too many nations are completely apathetic over the taking over of other nations. That is dangerous.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

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.

As fast as the Nazis took over so much of Europe, I don't think it would have taken them long to take over the world if it had not been for the U.S., Britain, and Russia. I think it took all three of us to stop them. Without the Allied resistance, the Nazis would have succeeded in taking over Europe, and at that point the hard part for them would have been over.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

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

I am not saying the entire U.N. said the stockpiles existed. There is a long and complicated story involved. Basically, UNSCOM made the findings in the 90's and the inspectors were flat out told by Hussein that he had had specifically named WMD stockpiles but that he had destroyed them. He did not do enough to prove himself on the destruction, and even Hans Blix said before the 2003 invasion that Hussein had not been satisfactorily cooperative in proving the destruction of the stockpiles, though Blix said that he believed he was close to getting to that point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_an...ss_destruction

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/...20Programs.htm

UM, we keep going over the same things over and over. I think you're wrong, you think I'm wrong.

I'm never going to be able to respond to your thoughts about the Vietnam War--the communists took over, we couldn't stop them, we lost.

Japan was a different situation than the middle east. They were an actual unified country before and after the war. Iraq was a country in name only, led by a dictator who kept it together by force. That's why they won't be able to work together.

Even in our "Wild West" phase which you are always referring to, we had the same constitution basically that we have now. We are a very old continuous government, and which evolved from centuries out of English law. It has developed within our culture for centuries. That cannot be forced onto a population.