Thread: Why Terrorism Exists

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.