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.

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.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

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.

The communists took over South Vietnam, but not the world. Our concern was the world. We won the overall war, which was the Cold War.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

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.

It takes a long time for the right kind of government to really produce its full potential. It happened with us, it happened with Britain, it happened with Japan, and it will happen with Iraq. We were not too unified in the early days, but look at us now. Give the Iraqis time. There is a lot of hope for them.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

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.

You know how England was at the time we won our independence. It took us a while to become a great country, but we finally did it. The Industrial Revolution greatly sped up the process, and Iraq has the advantage of the previous occurrence of the Industrial Revolution. With business growth and growing prosperity and worldly wisdom, a coming out of the primitive dark ages of ignorance and poverty driven despair, Iraq will become a unified country. Watch and see.

I think we have argued about this about as much as we can or at least as much as we feel like doing. Just remember this...

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Meet me here in 30 years, everybody. That will be November 3, 2037. Always remember that date. November 3, 2037. I am completely serious. Let's have a review of what ended up happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then let's have another one on November 3, 2067. At that point, we can all very much know how good or bad of an idea the beginning of the liberation of the Middle East was.

I'm not meeting you in november 3, 2067. Or november 3 2037. If your serious like you say. Your a very silly fella that cannot be taken seriously at all.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

I'm not meeting you in november 3, 2067. Or november 3 2037. If your serious like you say. Your a very silly fella that cannot be taken seriously at all.

Oh yeah, what ends up happening in Iraq and Afghanistan over the next few decades is completely irrelevant to the future of Iraq and Afghanistan. And you are not going to discuss this issue with us in 30 years and again in 60 years? Booo hooo hoooo!!! But you just add so much to these discussions. I can't believe you would be so rude after I let you down from your several moments of terror by telling you that I am not really a member of the Illuminati (So I had you believing. ). Your transexual porn pictures you PMed me were not enough to make up for the favors. Do you have something intellectual or at all relevant to add to this discussion? Sorry to hold you to such a high standard, but I thought I would at least check.

From Universal Mind
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.
...
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 paragraph explains their behavior.

So that I understand your position perfectly, you're saying that Iran wanted to avoid a war by avoiding the possibility that its nuclear program would be discovered, then continued to deny that it possessed a nuclear program in order to look 'tough' compared to complying with the US.

You'll be pleased to know that I'm beginning to agree with you on the former point. The more I learn about it, the more it seems that Iran had every reason to be afraid of an invasion by the US. The rest of the world had good reason to fear that the US would attack Iran as well, but of course few considered that catastrophic action a possibility in those early days.

As to the latter statement, it is very true today, but it wasn't always true:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...700727_pf.html

Iran apparently tried diplomacy, was rejected, and tried to do what it could to avert war with the US. Their decision to keep their halted nuclear program secret may have been fueled by the consideration that the US would not believe them if they said they had shut it down.

At this point, you'd probably be tempted to argue that the threat of war accomplished great things by getting Iran to do so much. It apparently did. However, this does not prove that diplomatic pressure would have been ineffective and it is not what your original point was. Your original point was that Iran would never negotiate or compromise, that it would continue unless the US violently deposed the Iranian government, that it is the mirror of the threat that Iraq was portrayed to be in every way except imminence. The threat of force is not force, and the two should not be equated.

You may also be tempted to argue that the threat of force means nothing if the US doesn't attack countries to prove that the US means business. That's true. It wouldn't mean much if the US didn't go to war with other nations. This has the consequence of encouraging conflicts that could be resolved by threat of force instead, and of course does nothing to demonstrate the futility of diplomatic action.

From Universal Mind
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.

I'm surprised I didn't see this before: your argument requires that several of the most powerful countries on the planet either do not exist or do not respond to attacks by the Axis powers. Similarly, Russia could take over the world if the world did not resist. Does this show that the world can be dominated, or does it only show that it could be dominated when the most powerful opposition is nonexistent?

In the case of Russia, it's plainly obvious why other nations didn't participate in Afghanistan or Vietnam: the US was already taking care of it. Taking the US out of the equation assumes that other countries would not adjust their strategies at all, even though conditions had become radically different.

There is just no evidence that world domination is possible, and no argument to that effect that does not require the same world-does-not-resist condition.

From Universal Mind
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.

Did the entirety of the other countries you mentioned believe the claims, or was it a similar story with them as well?

This was Mohamed ElBaradei's conclusion in his statement on the status of inspection in Iraq on Jan 27, 2003. I encourage you to read it in its entirety:

http://www.un.org/News/dh/iraq/elbaradei27jan03.htm

Conclusion:
To conclude: we have to date found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons programme since the elimination of the programme in the 1990s. However, our work is steadily progressing and should be allowed to run its natural course. With our verification system now in place, barring exceptional circumstances, and provided there is sustained proactive cooperation by Iraq, we should be able within the next few months to provide credible assurance that Iraq has no nuclear weapons programme. These few months would be a valuable investment in peace because they could help us avoid a war. We trust that we will continue to have your support as we make every effort to verify Iraq’s nuclear disarmament through peaceful means, and to demonstrate that the inspection process can and does work, as a central feature of the international nuclear arms control regime.

You've said that you suspect Saddam's nuclear weapons were hidden away or shipped to a foreign country. I'm curious as to where you think they may have been shipped or hidden, and why Saddam didn't use them in self-defense.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

So that I understand your position perfectly, you're saying that Iran wanted to avoid a war by avoiding the possibility that its nuclear program would be discovered, then continued to deny that it possessed a nuclear program in order to look 'tough' compared to complying with the US.

Yes.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

You'll be pleased to know that I'm beginning to agree with you on the former point. The more I learn about it, the more it seems that Iran had every reason to be afraid of an invasion by the US. The rest of the world had good reason to fear that the US would attack Iran as well, but of course few considered that catastrophic action a possibility in those early days.

As to the latter statement, it is very true today, but it wasn't always true:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...700727_pf.html

Iran apparently tried diplomacy, was rejected, and tried to do what it could to avert war with the US. Their decision to keep their halted nuclear program secret may have been fueled by the consideration that the US would not believe them if they said they had shut it down.

At this point, you'd probably be tempted to argue that the threat of war accomplished great things by getting Iran to do so much. It apparently did. However, this does not prove that diplomatic pressure would have been ineffective and it is not what your original point was. Your original point was that Iran would never negotiate or compromise, that it would continue unless the US violently deposed the Iranian government, that it is the mirror of the threat that Iraq was portrayed to be in every way except imminence. The threat of force is not force, and the two should not be equated.

You may also be tempted to argue that the threat of force means nothing if the US doesn't attack countries to prove that the US means business. That's true. It wouldn't mean much if the US didn't go to war with other nations. This has the consequence of encouraging conflicts that could be resolved by threat of force instead, and of course does nothing to demonstrate the futility of diplomatic action.

I think we're pretty much on the same page there. When I said you cannot reason with terrorists, I did not mean they do not respond to the mere threat of force. The threat of force is the only thing that makes them give into anybody. I was saying they cannot be negotiated with in the ways most leaders can. Most governments will try to avoid war because they value peace, even when they are dealing with nations they could easily defeat in a war. Iran is not a government that thinks that way. Peace itself is not a bargaining chip with them beyond the extent that they don't want to be destroyed. In other words, scaring the Hell out of them is the only thing we can use to get them to do anything.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

I'm surprised I didn't see this before: your argument requires that several of the most powerful countries on the planet either do not exist or do not respond to attacks by the Axis powers. Similarly, Russia could take over the world if the world did not resist. Does this show that the world can be dominated, or does it only show that it could be dominated when the most powerful opposition is nonexistent?

In the case of Russia, it's plainly obvious why other nations didn't participate in Afghanistan or Vietnam: the US was already taking care of it. Taking the US out of the equation assumes that other countries would not adjust their strategies at all, even though conditions had become radically different.

There is just no evidence that world domination is possible, and no argument to that effect that does not require the same world-does-not-resist condition.

World domination is impossible because the most powerful countries in the world would not let it happen. I was saying that without opposition from the world's three most powerful countries, Nazi world domination would have happened. Without opposition from the U.S., Soviet world domination would have happened. The Nazis took over a huge chunk of Europe very quickly. What would have stopped them from doing that to the rest of the world if the U.S., the Soviet Union, and Britain had not existed? It is not like they would have just gotten tired and stopped.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Did the entirety of the other countries you mentioned believe the claims, or was it a similar story with them as well?

Official reports from their intelligence agencies.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

This was Mohamed ElBaradei's conclusion in his statement on the status of inspection in Iraq on Jan 27, 2003. I encourage you to read it in its entirety:

http://www.un.org/News/dh/iraq/elbaradei27jan03.htm
[font=Times New Roman]

I have not argued that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program in 2003.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

You've said that you suspect Saddam's nuclear weapons were hidden away or shipped to a foreign country. I'm curious as to where you think they may have been shipped or hidden, and why Saddam didn't use them in self-defense.

Not nuclear weapons. I am talking about the stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. I think they were probably shipped to Syria or some other country, but for all we know they might be a mile under the desert in Iraq.

...scaring the Hell out of them is the only thing we can use to get them to do anything.

What was the US trying to get Saddam to do? Inspectors were allowed into Iraq, they were confident that their inspections were achieving the goal of verifying the destruction of Iraq's weapons programs, and Iraq was not in the process of, and showed no intentions to, invade one of its neighbors.

Saddam was asked to disarm before it was shown that he had any weapons to destroy. If he didn't have any WMD's, he had no ability to comply with the demand. If he did possess WMD's, why did the president insist that Iraq was preparing to launch a WMD attack on the US long before inspections could show that any WMD's existed? Even supposing that evidence existed that Iraq had any WMD's, what evidence existed that demonstrated Iraq was preparing an attack?

World domination is impossible because the most powerful countries in the world would not let it happen. I was saying that without opposition from the world's three most powerful countries, Nazi world domination would have happened. Without opposition from the U.S., Soviet world domination would have happened. The Nazis took over a huge chunk of Europe very quickly. What would have stopped them from doing that to the rest of the world if the U.S., the Soviet Union, and Britain had not existed? It is not like they would have just gotten tired and stopped.

I'm supposing that you agree with my statement that inventing the condition that the most powerful resistance is taken out of the equation is designed to yield victory for the would-be conquerer. A single man could take over the planet if his most powerful foes were removed and no one else stood up against him.

I think, however, that you place too much emphasis on the 'big three.' As I also stated earlier, removing the most powerful forces of resistance does not leave the rest of the world unchanged. Other forces of resistance would spring out of their apathy to fill the void. When there are large forces of resistance, there are few smaller ones, and when there are no large forces of resistance, there are many smaller ones. Terrorism is an excellent example of this diffusion of resistance, and a testament to its efficiency, if not its virtuosity.

I have not argued that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program in 2003.
...
I am talking about the stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. I think they were probably shipped to Syria or some other country, but for all we know they might be a mile under the desert in Iraq.

Why didn't Saddam use them in self-defense instead of getting rid of them?

If your shipping hypothesis is correct, why isn't there a major effort underway to locate these weapons? It doesn't seem like the US intelligence community would just let those slip away and into the hands of potential terrorists or rogue states.

If your buried-in-the-desert hypothesis is correct, it explains Saddam not using them in self-defense, but it raises another question:

If Saddam's WMD's were buried in the desert or shipped to another country, why was he an immediate threat? As above, what evidence was there that an imminent attack was going to be carried out?

Originally Posted by R.D.735

What was the US trying to get Saddam to do? Inspectors were allowed into Iraq, they were confident that their inspections were achieving the goal of verifying the destruction of Iraq's weapons programs, and Iraq was not in the process of, and showed no intentions to, invade one of its neighbors.

Saddam was asked to disarm before it was shown that he had any weapons to destroy. If he didn't have any WMD's, he had no ability to comply with the demand. If he did possess WMD's, why did the president insist that Iraq was preparing to launch a WMD attack on the US long before inspections could show that any WMD's existed? Even supposing that evidence existed that Iraq had any WMD's, what evidence existed that demonstrated Iraq was preparing an attack?

Demonstrating the destruction of their WMD's we knew they had at that time was one of the provisions of the 1991 ceasefire. That is not how the regime handled things. That is one of the several provisions the regime did not comply with. The stated consequence of noncompliance was overthrow. After 12 years, that is what they got. Even if the regime really didn't have WMD's to destroy in 1991 or any time later, then tough bananas for them. I think they should have been overthrown in 1991 any way. We gave them a way out if they could pull it off. If they couldn't, then too bad.

The U.N. inspectors said they were confident they could finish inspections later (after 12 years of B.S.) and come to the conclusion that the Hussein regime no longer had their WMD's. We were not so confident about their ability to be so sure about that, especially after five other governments reported the stockpiles still existed. I am not sure how we and five other governments gained that intelligence, but it is what we all gathered.

The regime did not comply correctly with the WMD destruction demand and several other ceasefire provisions. Also, their activities placed them under the Bush Doctrine which was formed in response to 9/11 (I of course do not think the Hussein regime was involved in 9/11, but 9/11 did stimulate major policy change.).

I was never sure about an imminent attack from the Hussein regime. I thought Bush was saying they could do it and not that they were planning on it. If he said the latter, I am not sure where he got the intelligence. Most likely from the CIA. My big concern, and one that Bush expressed, was that the regime could get their weapons into the hands of Al Qaeda (not a friend of the Hussein regime, but a group with a common enemy-- the U.S.-- and one that had met with Hussein representatives) or one of the terrorist groups the Hussein regime directly supported. That is serious business.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

I'm supposing that you agree with my statement that inventing the condition that the most powerful resistance is taken out of the equation is designed to yield victory for the would-be conquerer. A single man could take over the planet if his most powerful foes were removed and no one else stood up against him.

I think, however, that you place too much emphasis on the 'big three.' As I also stated earlier, removing the most powerful forces of resistance does not leave the rest of the world unchanged. Other forces of resistance would spring out of their apathy to fill the void. When there are large forces of resistance, there are few smaller ones, and when there are no large forces of resistance, there are many smaller ones. Terrorism is an excellent example of this diffusion of resistance, and a testament to its efficiency, if not its virtuosity.

Your point about the most powerful resistance being taken out of the equation is exactly my point. The most powerful resistance is necessary. Without the Allied Powers, the Nazis would have taken over the world. Without the U.S., the Soviets would have taken over the world. That is exactly what I have been saying the whole time. Before the Allies got into WWII, the Nazis were taking over countries as if they were convenience stores. I don't see why the rest of the world would have been any different.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Why didn't Saddam use them in self-defense instead of getting rid of them?

I think the embarrassment the U.S. has had over not being able to find the weapons gave Hussein much more glee than he would have experienced using the WMD's. He knew he couldn't come close to defeating us, even with the WMD's, so he did the next best thing. He fooled most of the world into thinking we attacked him for nothing.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

If your shipping hypothesis is correct, why isn't there a major effort underway to locate these weapons? It doesn't seem like the US intelligence community would just let those slip away and into the hands of potential terrorists or rogue states.

If your buried-in-the-desert hypothesis is correct, it explains Saddam not using them in self-defense, but it raises another question:

If Saddam's WMD's were buried in the desert or shipped to another country, why was he an immediate threat? As above, what evidence was there that an imminent attack was going to be carried out?

If the weapons were buried in the desert or had been shipped off to another country at the time of the invasion, we did not know that. Hussein would have buried them after we gathered our intelligence on where they once were. Also, there has been a major search for the weapons.

From Universal Mind
I am not sure how we and five other governments gained that intelligence, but it is what we all gathered.

This article was very interesting. It's old news, but it still has relevant points to make. As usual, I encourage you to read the whole thing, but for brevity, here's a small part of it:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...6-intell_x.htm

From USAToday (September, 2002)
...Conversely, the CIA says the U.S. military should assume that Saddam would use chemical and biological weapons against American invaders if the survival of his regime were at stake. Bush's top advisers view this risk as manageable.


One of the administration's key arguments is that the intelligence on Iraqi weapons may be wrong.


Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recall that inspections after the 1991 Persian Gulf War found Iraq much closer to fielding a nuclear weapon than the CIA had estimated. Now the administration warns that the latest CIA estimates — that Iraq may be years away from building a nuclear weapon — could be based on incomplete intelligence and wishful thinking.

You've said that the US doubted the conclusions of the UN and the ability of the IAEA to do its job. What basis was there for the doubt of the UN's conclusions and the conclusions of the US intelligence agencies?

From Universal Mind
I was never sure about an imminent attack from the Hussein regime. I thought Bush was saying they could do it and not that they were planning on it. If he said the latter, I am not sure where he got the intelligence. Most likely from the CIA. My big concern, and one that Bush expressed, was that the regime could get their weapons into the hands of Al Qaeda (not a friend of the Hussein regime, but a group with a common enemy-- the U.S.-- and one that had met with Hussein representatives) or one of the terrorist groups the Hussein regime directly supported. That is serious business.

If Saddam had never disarmed, this threat was not new. Iraq was repeatedly bombed in the 90's for its failure to comply with international law. If Saddam had any WMD's, he had a decade to give them to a common enemy, and chose not to. On the other hand, going to war with Saddam certainly risked that the WMD's would be used on civilians or given to a common enemy, a scenario that you have said is likely.

From Universal Mind
The most powerful resistance is necessary.

You may have missed the second part of my response: If the most powerful forces of resistance are taken out of the equation, lesser forces of resistance tend to spring up because they can no longer depend on a powerful ally to do the work for them. Large, powerful forces of resistance only seem necessary when it is assumed that lesser forces of resistance do not exist at all.

The Persians were thwarted at Thermopylae, Britain in the American colonies, Soviet Russia in Afghanistan, and the US in Vietnam. Rome was even sacked by former slaves at one point. In other words, the largest, most advanced armies on the planet have historically fallen to much smaller forces. It is only in the 20th century that superpowers have battled each other over world domination, and even so, there are contemporary examples of the smallest, most primitive resistance thwarting the plans of the most powerful armies on the planet(Iraq).

Even in the absence of powerful enemies, would-be world conquerers are vulnerable. It is even more true today than it was centuries ago.

From Universal Mind
I think the embarrassment the U.S. has had over not being able to find the weapons gave Hussein much more glee than he would have experienced using the WMD's. He knew he couldn't come close to defeating us, even with the WMD's, so he did the next best thing. He fooled most of the world into thinking we attacked him for nothing.

It's convenient that he's dead, so your assertion cannot be challenged. I cannot disprove that or provide evidence to the contrary. If that is your position on the subject, it is a position grounded on faith and nothing else. I disagree with you, and the article referenced above stated that the CIA assumed Saddam would use them. That's all I can say without berating you for making wild(and bizarre) speculations as to Saddam's intentions.

From Universal Mind
If the weapons were buried in the desert or had been shipped off to another country at the time of the invasion, we did not know that. Hussein would have buried them after we gathered our intelligence on where they once were. Also, there has been a major search for the weapons.

I assume that there are no digging teams searching the deserts of Iraq for Saddam's WMD's(because doing so would be a complete waste of time). Is there any evidence of a major search in Syria or other countries? If so, what, if anything, was found?

too much loud and confused and empty talk, too much dichotomy, nothing works, why even try? why does it even matter? why do you even bother?

why not either start over, or make sure it doesn't ever have to start over.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

This article was very interesting. It's old news, but it still has relevant points to make. As usual, I encourage you to read the whole thing, but for brevity, here's a small part of it:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...6-intell_x.htm



You've said that the US doubted the conclusions of the UN and the ability of the IAEA to do its job. What basis was there for the doubt of the UN's conclusions and the conclusions of the US intelligence agencies?

The U.N. did not have good enough reason to retract its earlier conclusions with sufficient certainty, and we had five other governments and our own CIA, Senate, and previous presidential administration's intelligence claims.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

If Saddam had never disarmed, this threat was not new. Iraq was repeatedly bombed in the 90's for its failure to comply with international law. If Saddam had any WMD's, he had a decade to give them to a common enemy, and chose not to. On the other hand, going to war with Saddam certainly risked that the WMD's would be used on civilians or given to a common enemy, a scenario that you have said is likely.

We don't know if he ever gave WMD's to a terrorist group or not. We do know that he had used WMD's in a terrorist attack and was funding terrorists and terrorist groups for terrorist purposes. The Bush Doctrine was new in 2003, and Saddam's multiple count violations of our ceasefire had gotten old enough.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

You may have missed the second part of my response: If the most powerful forces of resistance are taken out of the equation, lesser forces of resistance tend to spring up because they can no longer depend on a powerful ally to do the work for them. Large, powerful forces of resistance only seem necessary when it is assumed that lesser forces of resistance do not exist at all.

The Persians were thwarted at Thermopylae, Britain in the American colonies, Soviet Russia in Afghanistan, and the US in Vietnam. Rome was even sacked by former slaves at one point. In other words, the largest, most advanced armies on the planet have historically fallen to much smaller forces. It is only in the 20th century that superpowers have battled each other over world domination, and even so, there are contemporary examples of the smallest, most primitive resistance thwarting the plans of the most powerful armies on the planet(Iraq).

Did you see what I have been saying about how easy it was for the Nazis to take over so much of Europe before the world's most powerful countries jumped in? The U.S. could have easily taken Vietnam if we had gotten nukes involved or stayed long enough. Afghanistan fought off the Soviets because the U.S. helped the Afghans. Rome did not have the military technology the world's most powerful countries have had in the past century. The smaller forces cannot be counted on. World take over is something the world cannot take chances with. The most powerful countries are obligated to protect the world against it.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

It's convenient that he's dead, so your assertion cannot be challenged. I cannot disprove that or provide evidence to the contrary. If that is your position on the subject, it is a position grounded on faith and nothing else. I disagree with you, and the article referenced above stated that the CIA assumed Saddam would use them. That's all I can say without berating you for making wild(and bizarre) speculations as to Saddam's intentions.

You talk as though I pulled it of nowhere, as if I might as well have said, "Saddam dressed up like Oscar the Grouch on Tuesdays in his basement and talked to ham sandwiches." My speculation is based on logic, and I used logic to illustrate it. What you can try to do is explain how my rival hypothesis is not logical. The fact we both know with complete certainty to be true is that our inability to find the WMD's has been one of the most embarrassing foreign policy foul ups in our history. Large numbers of people in every country have been ragging us about it for the past four and a half years. Does it not make any sense to you that Hussein may have planned that out ahead of time since he knew what he could do by hiding the weapons? It is highly likely.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

I assume that there are no digging teams searching the deserts of Iraq for Saddam's WMD's(because doing so would be a complete waste of time). Is there any evidence of a major search in Syria or other countries? If so, what, if anything, was found?

There is no way to dig up an entire country, and we cannot start digging up Syria without invading it. Syria is just one of the possible hiding places.

UM, I'm not getting in this argument again, but it's common knowledge that Iraq didn't have any WMD. Everybody knows it. Whether they made a mistake, lied, whatever you want to blame it on. You are the only person in the world still insisting that they were there. Your arguments are incredibly feeble. Buried a mile under ground? Whisked out of the country, while Saddam hid in a root cellar? Come on, get real!

I know I'm going to regret this.

From Universal Mind
The U.N. did not have good enough reason to retract its earlier conclusions with sufficient certainty, and we had five other governments and our own CIA, Senate, and previous presidential administration's intelligence claims.

The gist of what I was pointing out was that the administration did not trust either the CIA or the UN. The administration believed Colin Powell's 2001 assessment of Iraq's capabilities was based on faulty or incomplete information, and that the UN inspectors were incapable of doing their job. The CIA obviously had not released intelligence that showed its conclusions were wrong at the time, so where did the administration get the idea that the intelligence was wrong?

Here's another example:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5024408

Powell told the U.N. Security Council that Iraq had mobile labs that could produce anthrax and other deadly germs, enough to kill many thousands of people. At the time, Lawrence Wilkerson was Powell's chief of staff. He says Powell went to then-CIA Director George Tenet in advance to make sure everything in that presentation was accurate. "I remember being in that room with Secretary Powell and George Tenet, and I remember vividly the secretary turning to George and saying 'George, you stand by this? Right?'" recalls Wilkerson. He says the CIA director responded, "Yes."


But "Curveball" was not a credible source. The Los Angeles Times, in a story this week, reports that the CIA knew the informant was unstable and that he provided fabricated intelligence. U.S. officials had no direct access to him.


David Kay, a former U.S. weapon inspector, was astounded that the government used the type of flimsy intelligence provided by "Curveball" as a basis for war. "I was flabbergasted when I discovered that we'd had the secretary of state lay this story out, and yet no American official had ever talked to this individual or even been able to directly interrogate him as to what his views are and how he knew what he claimed to know," says Kay.

From Universal Mind
We don't know if he ever gave WMD's to a terrorist group or not. We do know that he had used WMD's in a terrorist attack and was funding terrorists and terrorist groups for terrorist purposes. The Bush Doctrine was new in 2003, and Saddam's multiple count violations of our ceasefire had gotten old enough.

That's all quite true. Saddam specifically gave some money to the PLO a few times, and the PLO is a terrorist organization. They were never a global terrorist organization with any intent at expanding their activities beyond Israel, but yes, they were terrorists. Saddam did violate the ceasefire, and Iraq was repeatedly bombed because of it, not to mention burdened by economic sanctions. Over the years, these punishments were thought to be sufficient.

However, the war was presented as an immediate necessity, not an action that would finally end an ongoing stream of injustices. It was sold as a strategically defensive war, not a humanitarian war. The administration argued forcefully that Iraq had nuclear weapons and a nuclear program, and was going to use them to attack American interests, that Saddam was personally in league with Al Qaeda(without clarification of the fact that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al Qaeda, if you believe the CIA).

For those reasons, the discussion of the intelligence leading up to the war inevitably must center around the administration's assertions that Iraq was an imminent threat, and not around Saddam's prior infringements of international law. Arguing that Saddam just had it coming to him completely alters the official rationale for war.

From Universal Mind
Did you see what I have been saying about how easy it was for the Nazis to take over so much of Europe before the world's most powerful countries jumped in? The U.S. could have easily taken Vietnam if we had gotten nukes involved or stayed long enough. Afghanistan fought off the Soviets because the U.S. helped the Afghans. Rome did not have the military technology the world's most powerful countries have had in the past century. The smaller forces cannot be counted on. World take over is something the world cannot take chances with. The most powerful countries are obligated to protect the world against it.

I encourage you to look up Colonel Van Riper. He participated as the enemy commander in "Millennium Challenge 02," a war game meant to simulate a war with Iraq. Skeptical of Rumsfeld's plan for a very small, technology-enhanced army, he used primitive tactics available to Saddam to repel the American forces(including IED's). A couple of weeks into the game, it was apparent that the war had degenerated into a fiasco, and thousands of US soldiers were 'dead.' The simulation was restarted, with the condition that Riper use a script of strategies that Saddam was 'most likely' to use, guaranteeing American success.

The US had 600,000 soldiers in Vietnam. After a decade of fighting, with no end in sight, with so many soldiers in so small a country, it was apparent that the stated goal was impossible to achieve. Yes, the US could have won if it had used nuclear weapons, but millions more innocents would have died in Vietnam and in neighboring countries. Yes, the US could have remained in Vietnam, but the cost of lives and money would likely have caused the Cold War to last much longer than it did, perhaps forever.(It's hard to win an arms race when your arms, and soldiers, are being destroyed). Russia was not even aiding the Vietcong, and yet the US was defeated.

Yes, any power could win with nuclear weapons or by staying 'as long as it takes,' but these scenarios assume that nuclear weapons would not destroy the entire purpose of the war and that staying indefinitely is a logistical possibility and would not also destroy the purpose of the war.

From Universal Mind
You talk as though I pulled it of nowhere, as if I might as well have said, "Saddam dressed up like Oscar the Grouch on Tuesdays in his basement and talked to ham sandwiches." My speculation is based on logic, and I used logic to illustrate it. What you can try to do is explain how my rival hypothesis is not logical. The fact we both know with complete certainty to be true is that our inability to find the WMD's has been one of the most embarrassing foreign policy foul ups in our history. Large numbers of people in every country have been ragging us about it for the past four and a half years. Does it not make any sense to you that Hussein may have planned that out ahead of time since he knew what he could do by hiding the weapons? It is highly likely.

What does Saddam gain by the embarrassment of the US? You described it as 'glee.' Did it not occur to you that there could be a different purpose for WMD's, like self-defense against an enemy many times more powerful? Do you think harming US credibility was much more harmful than killing US soldiers?

The logic you are using is flawed for this reason: it acknowledges that the Iraq war gravely harmed US credibility, then pins the blame for that loss of credibility on Saddam, who had nothing to gain from that loss of credibility, instead of those who claimed, without evidence, that he had an active nuclear weapons program. Perhaps Saddam buried some bombs, but could he bury an entire nuclear weapons program? Not likely.

Strangely enough, Saddam did not admit to having WMD's or point out where they were hidden even after being captured. If your theory is correct, that information was tantamount to a serious threat to national security, and should have been extracted from him by the CIA. Maybe Saddam didn't even know he had WMD's...

From Universal Mind
There is no way to dig up an entire country, and we cannot start digging up Syria without invading it. Syria is just one of the possible hiding places.

You said a major search was undertaken. Are you now saying that such a search was never undertaken? In any case, why would Syria bury them if the only way to search in Syria was to invade? Is whatever group that has the WMD's now just as great a threat as Saddam was? Since there's no available information regarding the whereabouts of the alleged weapons, couldn't they be in the hands of any of Saddam's allies? If so, shouldn't the US military immediately leave Iraq to invade those allies and eliminate them? After that, if the WMD's are not found, shouldn't the allies of those allies be pursued? What if the WMD's made it onto the black market?

If your theory is correct, wouldn't you agree that the war destroyed one dangerous enemy and created dozens of others, whose threats to world security are just as grave?