Thread: Al Gore criticizes Bush for ignoring Iraq's ties to terrorism.

I guess they didn't like what a good job he was doing keeping the peace.

Gassing civilians and torturing your neighbours to 'keep the peace'? Reminds me of a Vietnam quote:

Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

Gassing civilians and torturing your neighbours to 'keep the peace'? Reminds me of a Vietnam quote:

Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity.

Are you agreeing with me or not, I can't tell.

2005, CIA airstrikes civilians in Damadola Pakistan

1 million killed by CIA in Indonesian Coup, 1965

U.S. Massacre No Gun Ri, korea in 1950 U.S. military killed at least 300 civilians.

Article on U.S. war crimes during current Iraqi conflict

I can go on and on.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Yes, I do; none of them have any idea that I exist.

They know that American civilians exist, and you are one. If they could nuke Vermont to a crisp, they would do it immediately.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Do you know who overthrew the democracy in Iran and installed the current Shah lead monarchy? It was the CIA in 1953. Do you know who funded the creation of the loose organization that came to be known as 'Al-Queda' after sept. 11th? It was the CIA in 1979-1989 with 'Operation Cyclone' during the Soviet war in Afghanistan.

Yes, alliances that backfired from Cold War actions. What about them? You forgot to say, "Excuse me while I change the subject."

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Do you know who put Hussein in power in Iraq? It was the CIA in 1963 when they killed the Iraqi president and brought the Ba'ath Party into power.

Another alliance gone bad. What about it? Terrorists want to kill you. Do you remember the discussion we were having a few posts ago?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

But, do you know who successfully kept the shiites and sunnis at bay in Iraq without signifigant military conflict until U.S. intervention in 2003? It was the same Hussein that the CIA had installed. I guess they didn't like what a good job he was doing keeping the peace.

I guess you never heard about the mass graves, the torturing and raping of people in front of their family members for extraction of information, the killing of people for merely being suspected of being opposition, the gassing of the Kurds, the funding of Palestinian suicide terrorism in Israel, the take over of Kuwait, Uday and Qusay's practice of raping women of their choosing and killing them in very morbid ways and then sending body parts to the family members if they had anything to say about it, putting citizens through shredders and hanging them on meat hooks for fun, the funding of Hamas and Hezbollah, violation of our ceasefire on terrorism grounds for 12 years, the harboring of Zarqawi, meetings with Al Qaeda members, the killing of U.S. soldiers, shooting missiles at Israel and Kuwait without provocation, etc.

By the way, why are we talking about this?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

2005, CIA airstrikes civilians in Damadola Pakistan

1 million killed by CIA in Indonesian Coup, 1965

What?????? Somebody is really trying to change the subject to some absurd nonsense. I won't say who.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The people he enjoys killing are people who enjoy killing people like you. You are damn lucky there are people like him out there.

That is the statement that got this going. Try to refute it. Your last attempt failed, and your attempt at distracting me away from it also failed.

I'm saying that regardless of the situation at hand now, it was morally repugnant to allow a dictator to continue to gas and shoot the people in his own country and that of one he annexed.

*sigh*

Originally Posted by The Simpsons

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

I sure am glad I have that rock, and those patriotic troops out there killing for my freedom.

specious reasoning- having a false look of truth or genuineness

evasive reasoning, equivocation, circularity, obscurantism, misapplication, disingenuousness, vicious circle


Really UM, your entire style of argument is based on stacking as many logical fallacies on top of one another as you can before the conversation topples.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

I'm saying that regardless of the situation at hand now, it was morally repugnant to allow a dictator to continue to gas and shoot the people in his own country and that of one he annexed.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity.

Its nice how things we say only apply when we want them to.

I didn't say I agreed with it either. It's an all round shitty situation.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

*sigh*



I sure am glad I have that rock, and those patriotic troops out there killing for my freedom.

specious reasoning- having a false look of truth or genuineness

evasive reasoning, equivocation, circularity, obscurantism, misapplication, disingenuousness, vicious circle


Really UM, your entire style of argument is based on stacking as many logical fallacies on top of one another as you can before the conversation topples.

False.

Terrorists are trying to kill you. Our military is what stops them from doing it, along with the help of other divisions of government such as DHS and local police. If we did not have a military, those terrorists would be over here and doing a lot of killing of Americans. It is a fact. If you disagree.... explain! Don't give me a Simpsons transcript. Explain yourself.

What the Hell did your tangents about foreign policy Monday morning quarterbacking (and lies) have to do with anything?

How exactly do you expect me to explain how US invasion of foriegn territory isn't stopping something that isn't happening?

Perhaps I should just give examples of times it was happening and US military aggression didn't manage to do anything about it. Lets see, theres the obvious 9/11 reference here, we had warning and did nothing. Theres also the first time someone attacked the world trade center in 1993 with a car bomb, which the FBI also had foreknowledge of.

Aug. 7, 1998, terrorist bombs destroy the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. July 27, 1996, A pipe bomb explodes during the Olympic games in Atlanta, killing one person and wounding 111. April 19, 1995, A car bomb destroys the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people and wounding over 600. Dec. 21, 1988, A bomb destroys Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. All 259 people aboard the Boeing 747 are killed including 189 Americans, as are 11 people on the ground.


I think the evidence shows that the US' military aggression is incapable of effectively fighting terrorism. Of course, one could argue that it is actually effective, as long as the desired effect is an endless frivolous war on a vague idea which anyone could be accused of fighting for that allows us to systematically invade any nation that doesn't pander to our whims and desires.

As for what the other info I posted had to do with the conversation; you blamed certain groups and labeled them terrorists, and I showed how those groups are actually extensions of our own government. We created the terrorists we claim to be out to destroy. We are like a twisted version of batman. We build up enemies so we have something to fight.

By the way, its great claiming that I lied, but you might try to actually refute my claims. Find a lie and set me straight, I dare you.

Oh great, more bizarre tangents.

Imagine what the terrorism level would be like if we did not have a military. This is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

By the way, its great claiming that I lied, but you might try to actually refute my claims. Find a lie and set me straight, I dare you.

I committed none of the fallacies you named, and the CIA did not kill 1 million Indonesians. We can start there.

Source for Indonesia; "the Embassy admitted in an April 15, 1966 airgram to Washington that “We frankly do not know whether the real figure [of PKI killed] is closer to 100,000 or 1,000,000 but believe it wiser to err on the side of the lower estimates, especially when questioned by the press.”"

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Xaqaria, give a short summary of what would happen if the United States completely disbanded the military tomorrow. If we suddenly no longer had a military, what would things be like here in one month? Think really hard about that and then give the best answer you can give.

Straw Man Fallacy - A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position)

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The people he enjoys killing are people who enjoy killing people like you. You are damn lucky there are people like him out there.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

False.

Terrorists are trying to kill you. Our military is what stops them from doing it, along with the help of other divisions of government such as DHS and local police. If we did not have a military, those terrorists would be over here and doing a lot of killing of Americans. It is a fact. If you disagree.... explain! Don't give me a Simpsons transcript. Explain yourself.

What the Hell did your tangents about foreign policy Monday morning quarterbacking (and lies) have to do with anything?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

They know that American civilians exist, and you are one. If they could nuke Vermont to a crisp, they would do it immediately.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Oh great, more bizarre tangents.

Imagine what the terrorism level would be like if we did not have a military. This is ridiculous.

Fallacy of the Consequent--draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion

Begging the question (also called Petitio Principii, Circulus in Probando--arguing in a circle, or assuming the answer)--demonstrates a conclusion by means of premises that assume that conclusion

Fallacy of undistributed Middle - The fallacy of the undistributed middle takes the following form:

All Zs are Bs
Y is a B
Therefore, Y is a Z

Example, Terrorists want to kill Americans, You (meaning me) are an American. Therefore, Terrorists want to kill you.


Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise -a logical fallacy that is committed when a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but one or two negative premises.

Example, Our military is fighting terrorism. Terrorists have not killed you. Therefore, our military is successful.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Source for Indonesia; "the Embassy admitted in an April 15, 1966 airgram to Washington that “We frankly do not know whether the real figure [of PKI killed] is closer to 100,000 or 1,000,000 but believe it wiser to err on the side of the lower estimates, especially when questioned by the press.”"

Here is the rest of the relevant excerpt:

The Indonesia volume includes significant new documentation on the Indonesian Army’s campaign against the Indonesia Communist Party (PKI) in 1965-66, which brought to power the dictator Suharto. (Ironically, Suharto’s successor, ex-President Wahid, is on his way to Baltimore this week for medical treatment, and has been replaced by his vice-president, who is the daughter of the man Suharto overthrew.) For example, U.S. Embassy reporting on November 13, 1965 passed on information from the police that “from 50 to 100 PKI members were being killed every night in East and Central Java….”; and the Embassy admitted in an April 15, 1966 airgram to Washington that “We frankly do not know whether the real figure [of PKI killed] is closer to 100,000 or 1,000,000 but believe it wiser to err on the side of the lower estimates, especially when questioned by the press.”

Since when is the CIA the Indonesian Army? Also, look at how you jumped the gun and went for the very top number in the estimate range. That is called intellectual dishonesty.

And... why did we end up discussing that?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Straw Man Fallacy - A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position)

Fallacy of the Consequent--draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion

Begging the question (also called Petitio Principii, Circulus in Probando--arguing in a circle, or assuming the answer)--demonstrates a conclusion by means of premises that assume that conclusion

I know what all of those are. Now explain how I supposedly committed them, and do it without being intellectually dishonest. Good luck.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Fallacy of undistributed Middle - The fallacy of the undistributed middle takes the following form:

All Zs are Bs
Y is a B
Therefore, Y is a Z

Example, Terrorists want to kill Americans, You (meaning me) are an American. Therefore, Terrorists want to kill you.

Your example is not fully in line with the fallacy, and the terrorists I am talking about, at least a very large percentage, want to kill ALL Americans. Read up on that. You are an American, therefore they want to kill you. That is use of correct reasoning.

All Americans are people Al Qaeda and other Islamofascist organizations want to kill.
Xagaria is an American.
Therefore, Xaqaria is a person Al Qaeda and other Islamofascist organizations want to kill.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise -a logical fallacy that is committed when a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but one or two negative premises.

Example, Our military is fighting terrorism. Terrorists have not killed you. Therefore, our military is successful.

I did not make that point. I did not say you in particular would 100% definitely automatically be dead. I said you are damn lucky we have a military that protects you. That is because without a military, tons of Americans would be getting killed by terrorists. That does not automatically mean you specifically are alive because we have a military. I am talking about survival odds and danger. My reasoning does not involve a fallacy of any type.

My premise is correct. Without a military, the terrorists who seek to kill Americans would be far more successful in doing so. (Do you honestly want to take issue with that? I mean really. Do you really want to dispute that?) Therefore, you are lucky we have a military. Proper reasoning. (See the definition of "lucky" and how it relates to odds.)

Xaqaria, explain what things would be like for the United States if we did not have a military. Don't dodge this time.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Xaqaria, explain what things would be like for the United States if we did not have a military. Don't dodge this time.

And with that last one, I think the conversation is officially toppled.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

And with that last one, I think the conversation is officially toppled.

That sounds like a...

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Terrorists are trying to kill you.

Do people like you ever come to think:

WHY DO THEY WANT TO KILL US?

ask yourself this, and you shall find the root of the problem, and the solution.

The reason they want to kill us is because of our military prescence on their soil, simple as plain white bread. But since they do not trust us, leaving the middle east won't solve the problem..they'll still attempt to hurt us for the wrong we have done.

The only way we could apologize is to leave their land ASAP and publicly announce on international television that the United States of America is drastically changing its foreign policy, we will no longer interfere in the affairs of other nations.

If you follow the advice of the founding fathers, who were extremely intelligent, they tell us to NOT get involved in foreign affairs, to NOT sacrifice liberty for perceived 'security', they told us NOT to form alliances and NOT to let a central bank control our currency.

Everything the founding fathers told us NOT to do, WE DID....

Good job America.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

which does in fact exist and does need to be handled through democratization

So that next time we are attacked we can say "well at least they voted on attacking us?"

Actually, the popular opinion is working in Iraq. 83% of the population wants the US occupation to end and they're shooting at the americans to try and get them that way. They aren't terrorists right now, they are in a state of self defense. What if it was the opposite situation and the Iraqi forces were occupying the US, you wouldn't fight back?

From their side, the american soldiers are the evil invaders.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

So that next time we are attacked we can say "well at least they voted on attacking us?"

I don't think that is a serious question, but I will answer it any way. Democratization leads to capitalism and prosperity, which is the cure for the severe poverty and lack of civilization behind the terrorist mentality.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Actually, the popular opinion is working in Iraq. 83% of the population wants the US occupation to end and they're shooting at the americans to try and get them that way. They aren't terrorists right now, they are in a state of self defense. What if it was the opposite situation and the Iraqi forces were occupying the US, you wouldn't fight back?

The terrorists are coming from many nations. It is not a "self-defense" situation. It is an anti-democracy situation. Read what Zarqawi thought of democracy and what motivates the Islamofascism we are fighting in Iraq.

We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology.

- Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, former Al Qaeda leader in Iraq

Does that sound like occupation was his only beef? He was not even Iraqi. Clearly, he was not a "freedom" fighter. He was obviously anti-freedom. That is the element we are fighting in Iraq. I also want to point out that the former Al Qaeda leader in Iraq did not say their war is just on people who support democracy in Iraq. He said they have declared war on people who follow the ideology. That includes you. It includes most of the West.

Of course the people don't like occupation. I wouldn't either. I am sure you wouldn't. They also, in too many cases, overestimate their ability to hold up the new government. However, we are not going to abandon the new government. It has to be able to stand on its own before we end the occupation. Do you honestly believe the terrorist opposition would end if we left? It is what is keeping our occupation going. The terrorism would get worse if we left. Therefore, it is not our occupation at the root of the terrorism. It is the new government that gives the people a voice. That is what the terrorists are fighting against.

When our occupation ends, which it will in upcoming years, you will see very different poll results concerning what we did for that country. In 50 years, our action will be considered the most heroic in the history of their nation.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

From their side, the american soldiers are the evil invaders.

That is a very broad generalization. Occupation sucks, but the sickos who are shooting at us and planting bombs are attacking the new government and the civilians too. Yes, targetting civilians on purpose. Explain that one.

Originally Posted by guerilla

Do people like you ever come to think:

WHY DO THEY WANT TO KILL US?

Yes, and the answer to that is much more complex than you realize. Their insane evil is part of the equation, wouldn't you say? They target civilians without expecting much, if any, effect. They think they are going to go to Heaven and have an orgy with virgins if they blow themselves up. They think Americans are "infidels" on the "holy land". We are obviously dealing with hateful scum who are playing with 38 cards or less. You admit that is a factor, don't you?

Originally Posted by guerilla

The reason they want to kill us is because of our military prescence on their soil, simple as plain white bread.

No, it is not that simple. First of all, you are not taking into account the fact that they are CRAZY AS FUCK. That is problem #1. What you are saying is like saying Son of Sam killed people because of barking dogs or that Charles Manson had his followers kill people because of Beatles songs. Such statements ignore the much bigger factor.

Read the answer to Q2 of Bin Laden's Letter to America. He does talk about infidels on the holy land and other such ridiculousness, but check out what all else he talks about. You will see just how much he hates you just for being an American, and he hates Americans who are gay and talk about being transgender an extra amount. He even demands that we stop allowing alcohol use and stock trade. He says their war with us will not end until we meet ALL of their demands, which you can see for yourself are completely unrealistic. His demands and insane ideas are typical of Islamofascists. We are dealing with complete nutcuckburgers. They will always be at war with somebody, until we have advanced the Middle East so much that such a primitive mentality is extremely rare. THAT is the goal we are working on by civilizing Iraq and Afghanistan.

Make sure you read the answer to Q2 of Bin Laden's Letter. You too, Ninja.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

You have a point, they are absolutely batshit insane, and we will never rid the world of terror, because if you wiped out say 90% of terrorists, they would just brainwash a new generation of terror.

We must fight the root of the problem, the problem is the children.

They are easily brainwashed and there must be education in the world, teaching kids how NOT to fall into the evil hands of terror groups, we need to educate and protect the future generations from succumbing to brainwashing from idiots like bin laden.

You have some good points but I have my disagreements with you, we know that but thats okay...thats what opinions are all about.

Seriously though, I don't think anyone has a solution to the terror problem

here are the options:

Fight the war on terror endlessly
End the war on terror and risk attack

what else can we do?...

They are both bad choices, its a big shit sandwich and we all have to take a bite.
(yes I know I stole that from FMJ)

But in all honesty, terror cannot be stopped, its like a disease, you need to wipe out every last remnant of it or else it will relapse...like a cancer..like roaches



But I just disagree with fighting the war, I despise all wars no matter how 'justified' they are..war brings death, it cannot create life.

That is why I am positively opposed to any military conflict between human beings, we are all one race, enough with these divisions of religion or color of skin or culture, we must unite the world not divide, wars don't unite, they divide and murder millions.

Think this through UM, people are dying as I am typing this very word, people are suffering and starving and are being shot and blown up, this is an absolute abomination...how can we humans tolerate war much longer?

We must abolish war, or war will abolish us from this earth.

Guerilla, thank you for your open-mindedness to what I am saying, and I see what you are saying too. However, I really believe that advancing and civilizing the Middle East in the long run will be a solution. It is only very backward poverty stricken areas that breed such high levels of that mentality. As far as I can tell, advancing the Middle East is the only solution there is.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Guerilla, thank you for your open-mindedness to what I am saying, and I see what you are saying too. However, I really believe that advancing and civilizing the Middle East in the long run will be a solution. It is only very backward poverty stricken areas that breed such high levels of that mentality. As far as I can tell, advancing the Middle East is the only solution there is.

It's a great idea on paper and all like communism but, its extremely difficult to 'force' democracy on people who want to put robes on women and slice peoples hands off for taking a banana from a fruit stand, they are old-fashioned and religion is so in-grained into their culture.

I think it is unrealistic to expect such a culture to become democratic, They will reject it to their deaths.

I would love to see a democratic middle east but, face the reality, its not going to happen, alot of men will die...and there will be no success at the end of the tunnel if you want my opinion.

But we really don't have much other choice do we?

speaking of which, a pakistani terror group blew up the danish embassy over a political cartoon snubbing mohammed...

Can anyone say these people take religion too serious?

Terrorists need to get a life, lol

I mean cmon, these people believe that a woman should not show their face or skin, that women cannot serve public office...that women are like worthless pretty much

Well I say FUCK YOU, women are very very fucking important and should be able to do whatever they please, these terrorist dickheads seem to be insecure and obsessed with religion.

To me, terrorists are little whiney babies, with guns.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I don't think that is a serious question, but I will answer it any way. Democratization leads to capitalism and prosperity, which is the cure for the severe poverty and lack of civilization behind the terrorist mentality.

No, religious nutjobs are behind terrorism, same thing with american terrorists. They do things in the name of religion and no amount of prosperity and civilization will change that.

Until recently England has a monarchy (still do in a ceremonial position) and they were the largest country on earth.

The terrorists are coming from many nations. It is not a "self-defense" situation. It is an anti-democracy situation.

I was referring to the Iraqi situation, why the amount of violence in increasing. People feel threatened by the occupying force so it is easy to persuade new recruits to anti-american believes.

Of course the people don't like occupation. I wouldn't either. I am sure you wouldn't. They also, in too many cases, overestimate their ability to hold up the new government. However, we are not going to abandon the new government. It has to be able to stand on its own before we end the occupation. Do you honestly believe the terrorist opposition would end if we left? It is what is keeping our occupation going. The terrorism would get worse if we left. Therefore, it is not our occupation at the root of the terrorism. It is the new government that gives the people a voice. That is what the terrorists are fighting against.

Again, religion will always promote terrorism. The Iraqi elections put something like a 70% Shiite majority in the Iraqi equivalent of the Senate. So the other side feels threatened. The Americans helped this happen, therefore the other side hates the US even more now. Split the country in two, one Shiite, one *the other group* like they did with so many other middle eastern countries. Don't force two groups that hate each other to live under one nation.

What is the name of the other large faction? It bugs me that I can't remember it.

When our occupation ends, which it will in upcoming years, you will see very different poll results concerning what we did for that country. In 50 years, our action will be considered the most heroic in the history of their nation.

No, in 50 years it will still be considered the dumbest idea in american history, and Dubya will still be considered the worst american president. A war for the wrong reasons doesn't change to stories of heroism just from time. Vietnam is still considered a disaster and Nixon is still considered scum.

That is a very broad generalization. Occupation sucks, but the sickos who are shooting at us and planting bombs are attacking the new government and the civilians too. Yes, targetting civilians on purpose. Explain that one.

Again, religion is the problem.

Yes, and the answer to that is much more complex than you realize. Their insane evil is part of the equation, wouldn't you say? They target civilians without expecting much, if any, effect. They think they are going to go to Heaven and have an orgy with virgins if they blow themselves up. They think Americans are "infidels" on the "holy land". We are obviously dealing with hateful scum who are playing with 38 cards or less. You admit that is a factor, don't you?

religion is stupid. I don't get the life of celibacy to have 72 virgins when you die, why not have that fun on earth with girls who actually know what they're doing?

Ninja and Guerilla, Islam will remain very dominant in the Middle East, including Iraq, but what will change is the extreme level of fundamentalism. Captitalism has a way of civilizing nations. Democracy is not always the only way to capitalism, but it has always worked. We still have fundamentalist Christians in the U.S., but compare them to the ones that lived during the much more backward and impoverished days of Europe. They stoned people to death for working on Sunday and for being gay. Now they work on Sundays and just try to stop gay people from getting married. Well, they also try to shut down strip clubs and get prayers in public schools. They used to use the Bible to condone slavery, they made sex slaves of women, they killed people for saying, "Jehovah." With civilization came major improvements. The fundamentalist Christians of advanced American and European society are nothing like their crazy fundamentalist ancestors. That is the kind of change we are working on in the Middle East.

Ninja, the Sunnis and Shiites are going to be enemies for a long time, but the way their rivalry works will change a great deal over time. I don't believe in creating separate governments based on those factions. It would result in theocracies, which are exactly what we do not want. Religion has no place in government. It is hilarious to see Christian fundamentalists pushing that principle without ever admitting it, but it is the point. Islam will remain in the heart of the Middle East, but the level of fundamentalism will not. Neither will the major prevalence of the will to commit suicide.

Oh, one more thing, Ninja. We did not finish the job in Vietnam. We caved in to internal political pressure. We are not going to make that mistake this time, and this is a very different kind of war. We are not waiting on a stubborn government to surrender. We are just standing guard and allowing capitalism to do its thing.

No, science destroys religion, not capitalism. There has to be some sort of socialized education system in order to do that. And the US has been around for 200 years and there are still fundamentalist nuts. They even have majority in places like mississippi. I'm sure that you voted against the gay marriage ban, but the rest of the state still passed it. I've heard no debate against gay marriage that wasn't a fundamentalist christian one. (I'm only picking on Miss cause you live there You're not the only state that did that.)

Democracy doesn't work when there is a complete passion for hating the opposing side. If the shiites gain power, the sunnis will rebel, if the sunnis gain power the shiites will rebel. If an athiest gains power they both will rebel. Doesn't have to even be much power, just a majority. They are so brainwashed by their religion that democracy just won't work.

It's not like the US where red and blue bicker, but are still both near the middle of the spectrum. It'd be like getting Jerry Falwell and Elton John to run a country together.

How we lost Vietnam is irrelevant, my point was that the war itself is still considered unlawful and un-American.

I must admitt that I don't believe the Arabs are fit for the kind of freedom we cherish here in the West. I've been learning a lot about their culture in preperation for deployment, and the customs they hold dear are not in sync with freedom.

On the other hand, democracy they can handle, as they have proven. They love that shit over there. They vote in higher percentages than we do.