"We are loosing the war on terror, because every goal the terrorists have
set, they have succeeded in completing. They may loose individual
skirmishes… but look at what they have accomplished, and look at what we've
accomplished…

The United States have set the terms for the war on terror. President bush
stated in his September 25th speech "On September the 11th, enemies of
freedom committed an act of war against our country. Our war on terror
begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every
terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. They
brought the war to us. (I reference to 9/11) " This speech was followed up
by from Vice President Dick Cheney, who said" One by one, in every corner of
the world, we will hunt the terrorists down, and destroy them"
And so the "War on terror" has commenced. Well, I ask you, what is terrorism
defined as exactly?
Terrorism is defined (By Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary) as the
systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or
governments " This means that Pres. Bush and Dick Cheney have potentially
declared war on the entire world, as everyone is a potential terrorist. Do
you honestly think that we have enough resources to fund such a campaign? I
think not.
The war on terror officially began more than 2 years ago, on September 11,
2001, when al Qaeda terrorists crashed airliners into the pentagon and the
world trade center killing 3,000 people. The terrorists, with this one
attack, accomplished many of their goals. They disrupted the strongest
economy in the world, they killed 3000 Americans, and they inadvertently
managed to strip Americans of the freedoms that they held dear. I now ask
you, what have we done to the terrorists that have come near the damage that
they have done to us?
What most Americans do not realize, is that it's not the person that drives
these associations, it is the ideology. They hate Americans, and they don't
want us in their country. Yet this is contrary to the direction that
President bush is leading us. Osama bin laden was quoted as saying ""Muslims
burn with anger at America. For its own good, America should leave [Saudi
Arabia.] ... There is no more important duty than pushing the American enemy
out of the holy land. ... The presence of the USA Crusader military forces
on land, sea and air of the states of the Islamic Gulf is the greatest
danger threatening the largest oil reserve in the world.
The existence of these forces in the area will provoke the people of the
country and induces aggression on their religion, feelings and prides and
pushes them to take up armed struggle against the invaders occupying the
land. ... Due to the imbalance of power between our armed forces and the
enemy forces, a suitable means of fighting must be adopted, i.e. using
fast-moving, light forces that work under complete secrecy. In other words,
to initiate a guerrilla war, where the sons of the nation, and not the
military forces, take part in it."
They don't want westerners imposing upon them our beliefs, nor system of
government and it is increasingly clear. There have been more attacks
worldwide after the war in Iraq *insert random facts and such*
The Al Qaeda has grown in strength over the last 2 years." The organization
and its associates have managed to plan, and often undertake, a remarkable
range of activities, with these collectively showing a capability that
exceeds that existing before the 9/11 attacks.
Every terrorist leader we capture, or kill will be replaced. Their death
will be used as a rallying point for recruiting more self proclaimed
martyrs. In essence, no militant action that we do will ever be enough,
short of genocide. We need to win the minds and the hearts of our enemys
before we can ever dream of a true victory.

Let me end this by saying that terrorism can never be defeated. Its simply a
labeling game- Isn't one person a terrorist and one a freedom fighter? Our
troop's occupation worldwide is only creating angst. This angst will lead to
hatred, and this hatred will breed the new generation of terrorists. The
United States is doing poorly with dealing with the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
Not to mention, we're hard pressed keeping terrorists out of our own
country. How can we possibly win this war on the world?"


Alright, that's my friend's affirmative case for this topic. This is for debate club. Uh, what we are missing(because everybody knows it isn't true :D) is the negative case. So, rip apart this case as you wish.

Who's your "friend ?"

Blibblob, the eternal optimist, perhaps we should just pack it in and head home, hide in our closets and hope they decide not to do anything to us everyday. I dont know about you, but I have never felt comfortable relying on the best intentions of my enemies as my sole source of defense.

Who's your "friend ?"
Uh, my friend, who is in debate with me, I'll be posting my case, for a different topic soon... And this doesn't seem to be sparking as much yelling as it would have done if it was posted before we went into Iraq...

Blibblob, the eternal optimist, perhaps we should just pack it in and head home, hide in our closets and hope they decide not to do anything to us everyday. I dont know about you, but I have never felt comfortable relying on the best intentions of my enemies as my sole source of defense.
Um, did you read it trav? The war against terrorism, just like the war against drugs, is not a run in and kill war, it is a war against ideas. Eventually the people will understand that their natural freedoms are being butchered, soon they'll realize that they are pawns. But they might need a little bit of help. They need to be given information, not a bullet wound to the head.

BABUMP!

Come on, if this was before Iraq, you people would be on it like rabid dogs!

I actually agree with what you said. It is a labeling game, and we can't win. The whole idea of fighting terrorism is irrational. Fighting organized crime is a different matter. Just saying that someone is a terrorist because Americans have this negative image of terrorists for the sole purpose of enraging us is pure manipulation. And it is succeeding. Look at the pathetic damage that these terrorists did to our country, but then look at how the media played it up and now look at the damage done to our paranoid society. We have people freaking out about terrorism when it is such an infintesinimally small number of people who died because of these terrorists.
The most damage has been done by our media. If it was downplayed, or presented as it actually was; a few thousand people died, then we would not be in such a state of terror and these terrorists would have failed miserably in their goal.

OK, wea re fighting against radical islam, that better?

ERRRRR, Incorrect trav.

"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated." - President Bush

Originally posted by Travh20
OK, wea re fighting against radical islam, that better?

Ironically, the USA have been the strongest supporters of radical Islam for 20 years !
- Pakistan
- Talibans
- Saudia arabia
- GIA in Algeria

All have been supported and sometimes trained by the USA.

so whats your point? really, why do all you people like shaman keep bringing up the past, just becasue we did something questionable in the past we have no right to fight these people now? what the hell is your point in all of this? Is it just some sort of middle finger saying "told ya so" or what? Are you implying because we "supported" our enemys in the past we have no right to fight them now? Global politics change, enemys change, its how the world works, you should know this being from france and having your biggest ally against the US led war on Terror being Germany, who not to long ago was wiping your ass across the floor in Europe.

Originally posted by WindWip
Look at the pathetic damage that these terrorists did to our country, but then look at how the media played it up and now look at the damage done to our paranoid society. We have people freaking out about terrorism when it is such an infintesinimally small number of people who died because of these terrorists.

I get your point, but I take issue with this part somewhat. 3000 people may be a tiny percentage of the population, but it's not an insignificant number. And reallly the number is irrelevant, because as long as you don't take any action to stop it, it will continue and the numbers will grow until they are significant.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
I get your point, but I take issue with this part somewhat. 3000 people may be a tiny percentage of the population, but it's not an insignificant number. And reallly the number is irrelevant, because as long as you don't take any action to stop it, it will continue and the numbers will grow until they are significant.
Yes, this is true. How many people will need to die, WindWip, to become "significant"? One million? I think even 1 death is significant, though it may not seem that way in the grand scheme of things.

windwip is just spouting BS now,. it seems 3000 american lives is nothing to him, but he sure was concerned for the lives of each and every precious Iraqi life.

Keep in mind these people are at war with us. Terrorism to them is probably merely a form of battle on a limited budget.
Our previous wars consisted of guys with guns on each side of a fence shooting at each other until the side with the most soldiers left alive won the battle.
We are merely being introduced to a new form of war.
And war it is.
These people hate us with a burning passion. Their suicide attacks remind me of the Japanese pilots that crashed their planes into our war ships during wwII. Just another desperate form of war to inflict both physical and psycological damage.
Sorry to hear that some people think that if we ignore it , it will go away.

Yes, this is true. How many people will need to die, WindWip, to become "significant"? One million? I think even 1 death is significant, though it may not seem that way in the grand scheme of things.
Exactly the reason why we must avoid war at all costs.

everyones lives are signifiant except for those poor souls who were filling saddams mass graves and torture chambers right blob? is it worse to kill a thousand people during the liberation of a country or do nothing and let hundreds of thousands die of torture, murder, and starvation caused by greedy dictators who spend all their "aid" money on weapons and palaces? If we avoided war at all costs this world would be a crappy place to live.

There are better ways to end disputes and problems than war. If we went to war against every country that had the same conditions that Iraq did, the whole planet would be ablaze.

Originally posted by Blibblob
Exactly the reason why we must avoid war at all costs.

What if the cost is more deaths than the war itself creates?

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Yes, this is true. How many people will need to die, WindWip, to become "significant"? One million? I think even 1 death is significant, though it may not seem that way in the grand scheme of things.

This is exactly the sort of attitude that makes terrorists successful. If terrorists manage to kill one person, we'll voluntarily send our country into an economic downspin to protect the public. What do terrorists take from this? Terrorism is extraordinarily effective in weakening the U.S.

Originally posted by Leper
This is exactly the sort of attitude that makes terrorists successful. If terrorists manage to kill one person, we'll voluntarily send our country into an economic downspin to protect the public. What do terrorists take from this? Terrorism is extraordinarily effective in weakening the U.S.
I didn't say that, I said one death is significant. Not "one death is enough to spend millions of dollars chasing after wild geese and arresting innocent Americans without access to a lawyer or anyone even knowing their whereabouts".

Originally posted by Leper
This is exactly the sort of attitude that makes terrorists successful. If terrorists manage to kill one person, we'll voluntarily send our country into an economic downspin to protect the public. What do terrorists take from this? Terrorism is extraordinarily effective in weakening the U.S.

And I agree with the larger point that (I think) you're getting at, which is that the terrorist will have succeeded if they bring us to a complete paranoid standstill. I don't think we're there yet, but we do seem to be headed in that direction. What no one's willing to admit is that there has to be some trade-off between safety measures and our exposure to the risks of terrorism. Unless we're will to accept a complete clamp-down some people are going to die. I actually think that's an acceptable trade-off.

Wrong Blibbob,

In the two years since 9/11 the U.S. has toppled two tyranical regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, captured a great deal of the top dogs in Al queada, captured Saddam and have transformed Bin Laden from a powerful, elusive terror figure to an old man, hiding in holes and whispering words of encouragement to fellow terrorists by tape every few months. Not bad for a couple of years in the fight against terrorism. No we can't "wipe out" terrorism, but we can make the price too high for most to consider it.

As far as the bunk about other countries not wanting our so called "lifestlyle," can you explain to me someone who would choose tyranny over democracy and self expression, someone who would choose want over plenty? The only people I can think of who would make such a choice, are the tyrants themselves. If so many people in so many countries hate us, then why are so many damn foreigners coming to our shores? Much of the hatred of the U.S. in the mid east comes from the various tyrants who have taken away basic freeedoms/dignities from their citizens, given them little chance to make a better future for themselves, and to keep the masses from coming after them, they blame their country's problems on the U.S. Dammit.

I like this darth be'lal already

Yeah, me too. Does that mean I'm on the dark side?

Welcome to the Forums, Darth Be'lal, we look forward to reading more from you.

What if the cost is more deaths than the war itself creates?
But what about the effects of the war, the anger it incites. You can't destroy war with war. You can't stop terrorism by practicing it.

In the two years since 9/11 the U.S. has toppled two tyranical regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq,
How many people were ticked off in the proccess?
captured a great deal of the top dogs in Al queada,
By the very structure of Al Qaeda, it doesn't matter. You can take away one big dog, but there is always another to take his place. You can capture a bunch of big dogs and set them back a half a year to a year, but it doesn't matter.
captured Saddam
Good job.
and have transformed Bin Laden from a powerful, elusive terror figure to an old man, hiding in holes and whispering words of encouragement to fellow terrorists by tape every few months.
But he still has power, and is still funding them. Killing him would incite more anger, it would turn him into a martyr.
Not bad for a couple of years in the fight against terrorism. No we can't "wipe out" terrorism, but we can make the price too high for most to consider it.
A fight that is unwinnable. And the cost of a war? Especially one of this magnitude(infinite), ENORMOUS. You can't fight terrorism with murder! Most of these people have very tyranical views, very authoritarian. Many are quite brainwashed. The only way to win is to show them how they are wrong. Not blow their brains out, and then tell them they are wrong.

As far as the bunk about other countries not wanting our so called "lifestlyle," can you explain to me someone who would choose tyranny over democracy and self expression, someone who would choose want over plenty?
Anybody who is brainwashed.

If so many people in so many countries hate us, then why are so many damn foreigners coming to our shores?
You overrate yourself. People come to America, people leave America. Canada gets just as many immigrants as the US, I would highly doubt that the US gets many more immigrants than a European country.

they blame their country's problems on the U.S.
When the US places sanctions on them that keep the country poor and the people starving, they actually have an excuse to.

I like this darth be'lal already
Yeah, me too. Does that mean I'm on the dark side?
Why, because he is exactly like you?

First off, thank you Travh20, LionelHutz and es347fan for welcoming me to the boards. I'll do my best to post from time to time. And yes Lionel, you ARE on the darkside! LOL!

As for you Blibblob, I made a point that nearly all people would choose Freedom over tyranny, plenty over want etc. You fired back, "only if they're brainwashed." Do you care to elaborate on that particular point, or will you just stick to pronouncements?

Also, this war on terror IS going to be a long messy affair but I firmly believe that if the United States holds to the policy of confronting terrorism, it WILL diminish. I'd rather be doing something about it now, then have another 9/11. As for killing Bin Laden would incite the anger of terrorists, let them get angry. What are they going to do about it?

The bit on US imposed sanctions I found a bit amusing. Let's see, either we impose sanctions and the people suffer, or we do what France and Germany did with Iraq (they had that supposed oil for food thing going with Saddam), and open trade with them, and the people will STILL suffer while the dictator now has a secure source of funds for building weapons/consorting with terrorists. Which would you choose?

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal


Also, this war on terror IS going to be a long messy affair but I firmly believe that if the United States holds to the policy of confronting terrorism, it WILL diminish. I'd rather be doing something about it now, then have another 9/11.

I agree with you that the USA must hold the policy of confronting terrorism. But I do not see how this is done right now. War in Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. The best way to fight terrorism is to set a good network of intelligence, and to work closely on a worldwide basis with your allies. Which has not precisely been the case.

As for killing Bin Laden would incite the anger of terrorists, let them get angry. What are they going to do about it? [/QUOTE]

Sure, Bin laden should be arrested, not killed. First because it would allow his trial and we would certainly learn many interesting things. Second, because by killing him, you would only give him the status or martyr.
When you talk about "the terrorists", you seem to believe it is a very well defined group of people, like a nation or even an organization. But this is not so true. The problem in the idea of "killing the terrorists" is that, the more you kill, the more you create, just because of anger and despair. I agree that criminals must be stopped, but the only true answer to terrorism is political, not military. As long as the problems in palestine and Saudi Arabia are not solved, new terrorists will always be ready to replace the old ones.

how is a good network of intelligence alone going to do anything to stop terrorism?at some point someone is going to have to get a gun, or get in a plane and go after them. And the war in iraq is a war on terrorism. if you think the SH regime wasnt a terrorist group, you have been misled. Have you noticed the sharp drop off in palestinian suicide bombings since saddam fell?

and astra, please, tell me an effective way to politically deal with people who are willing to blow themselves up in crowded shops and buses, and who teach their kids that to kill infidels is glorious and to die doing it is better? A solution not inculding giving them what they want just to keep them happy, like caving into child who screams until they get their way.

As for you Blibblob, I made a point that nearly all people would choose Freedom over tyranny, plenty over want etc. You fired back, "only if they're brainwashed." Do you care to elaborate on that particular point, or will you just stick to pronouncements?
The comment was "anybody is brainwashed" to who would choose tyranny over democracy etc., not flipfloped as you said it in your return comment(just attempting to clear it up, because interpretation is very important in this case). Now then, if you had the vision of "democracy" showered on you as hatred to others, arrogance, big fat white men running around making millions, would that be something you would like? These people don't have access to Rousseau's books, they don't have access to anything. How can you make a judgement against people who are just... brainwashed?

Also, this war on terror IS going to be a long messy affair but I firmly believe that if the United States holds to the policy of confronting terrorism, it WILL diminish. I'd rather be doing something about it now, then have another 9/11.
In agreement with astrapol, the current way the US is going about it is wrong, I say it is really fucked up. It isn't a war of who the hell has the biggest guns, even though stratagy will dictate the ones with the smaller(but more) guns will win. And to your comment, no it wont diminish, especially not by blowing the heads off of brothers of people who might join in.

As for killing Bin Laden would incite the anger of terrorists, let them get angry. What are they going to do about it?
One bee sting wont kill a person, but a thousand will.

The bit on US imposed sanctions I found a bit amusing. Let's see, either we impose sanctions and the people suffer, or we do what France and Germany did with Iraq (they had that supposed oil for food thing going with Saddam), and open trade with them, and the people will STILL suffer while the dictator now has a secure source of funds for building weapons/consorting with terrorists. Which would you choose?
There are more ways than what has been done. Let's see, don't open trade and don't impose sanctions that keep the country from importing even pencils because daddy Bush said that pencils have lead and lead can be used as part of the WMD program.


if you think the SH regime wasnt a terrorist group, you have been misled
If you think Israel isn't a "terrorist group", you have been misled.

Have you noticed the sharp drop off in palestinian suicide bombings since saddam fell?
Oh really? There was one not that long ago, and then there were some in Turkey too.

and astra, please, tell me an effective way to politically deal with people who are willing to blow themselves up in crowded shops and buses, and who teach their kids that to kill infidels is glorious and to die doing it is better? A solution not inculding giving them what they want just to keep them happy, like caving into child who screams until they get their way.
I'll tell you, undermine the propoganda and ideological force the terrorist groups have on the people.

oh bliblob, so gullible. and I said drop off in palestinian suicide bombings, no end of. yes, there was 1. how many were there since the end of the SH regime? how many were there in as many months leading up to the outing of SH? and if you think Israel is a terrorist group, you are just a stupid kid who has read to many web pages. Israel is a democracy freely elected by the people. I dont want to get into it again with you.

Not even the Israelites agree with each other on how to confront their dilema. Israel is a split nation on this.

To erradicate Islamic terrorism you need to get to the root cause of it, not throw bombs at it. The reasons there is deep anti-Americanism in that part of the world can be found by reading history. The region has been pushed around by western (Christian) powers since the Crusades. This is no excuse for flying jets into the WTC, but it's important to know what role we've played in this mess....

its more important to know that the dictators that run those countries delibratly aim their people hatred at us, so the people can not get a clear enough thought in their heads to realize who it is that is really makeing their lives miserable, namely their own governments. the only thing we could have to done to the people of the middle east is make them all rich, but it is their leaders who are rich while the people suffer. we send enough money over there for oil, as is pointed out time and again, to make everyone there happy, but, the dictators keep it all and say its the americans that make their life crap. the funny thing is even the liberals that live here buy into that lie for some reason.

its more important to know that the dictators that run those countries delibratly aim their people hatred at us, so the people can not get a clear enough thought in their heads to realize who it is that is really makeing their lives miserable, namely their own governments.
Exactly, and that is why you shouldn't run around blowing their non-existant brains out.

oh bliblob, so gullible. and I said drop off in palestinian suicide bombings, no end of. yes, there was 1.
I could have sworn there were more, and how many were there in one year before the war? Come on, you need statistics to back yourself up, not just the count from after the war, you need the count from before the war too.

and if you think Israel is a terrorist group, you are just a stupid kid who has read to many web pages. Israel is a democracy freely elected by the people. I dont want to get into it again with you.
Yep, same "democracy" style as Iran. Except instead of radical muslims, we have a bunch of Zionists.

Originally posted by Blibblob
its more important to know that the dictators that run those countries delibratly aim their people hatred at us, so the people can not get a clear enough thought in their heads to realize who it is that is really makeing their lives miserable, namely their own governments.
Exactly, and that is why you shouldn't run around blowing their non-existant brains out.

oh bliblob, so gullible. and I said drop off in palestinian suicide bombings, no end of. yes, there was 1.
I could have sworn there were more, and how many were there in one year before the war? Come on, you need statistics to back yourself up, not just the count from after the war, you need the count from before the war too.

and if you think Israel is a terrorist group, you are just a stupid kid who has read to many web pages. Israel is a democracy freely elected by the people. I dont want to get into it again with you.
Yep, same "democracy" style as Iran. Except instead of radical muslims, we have a bunch of Zionists.

so because the mid east governments lie to their people about us they all should get a free pass so we dont make ourselves look bad? FIRST CALL! we are already hated blob.

if you didnt read what I wrote bliblob, I said take a look at the suicide bombing BEFORE AND AFTER the war and see when the drop off occured. I said that after saddam fell, the suicide bombings really dropped off big time.

in case you didnt know, there area muslim arabs elected in the israeli government. how many jews are in the
PLO or Iranian goverment? Come to think of it, how many jews live in the middle east in countries other than israel, period?

Originally posted by Travh20
The only thing we could have to done to the people of the middle east is make them all rich, but it is their leaders who are rich while the people suffer. we send enough money over there for oil, as is pointed out time and again

The USA send money to the middle east for oil ? Explain me this !
The only money the USA send to the middle east is precisely for the guns that allow these "dictators" to keep their power and in return allow them to purchase oil via american owned companies.
The first thing the USA should have been doing after 9-11 is stop their support tu Saudi Arabia. May I remind you that, like Ben Laden, most terrorists implied in 9-11 were saudi - not one iranian, not one iraqi, not one palestinian ! And that the saudi regime, which has alweys benefited from US support, is a far worst tyranny than Iran or even Syria (which do not have my sympathy anyway).

I agree with you that democracy should be the goal in Middle east. I think that only democracy and a decent life standard can turn people away from the radical option. But I do not think democracy can be imposed by force.

Yep, same "democracy" style as Iran. Except instead of radical muslims, we have a bunch of Zionists.

That is an extremely unfair and biased statement. How do you KNOW that the Israeli government is full of radical Zionists? I don't see Zionists preaching to each other that everyone who does not worship Yahweh must be converted or killed. If that were the case, the Jews would already have taken over the middle east easily. They could wipe the region clean of Muslims if they wanted to (something radical Islamists cannot do yet), but they don't. This proves that they are reasonable people willing to accept other peoples, customs, and beliefs. Sure, there are extreme elements of the Israeli government and society, but those elements do not control the overall policy-making mechanism of ruling the nation, very UNLIKE that of Iran. I don't understand, Blib, do you have something against Israel?

Not even the Israelites agree with each other on how to confront their dilema. Israel is a split nation on this.

The mere fact that Israelis can disagree among themselves shows that there is at least some freedom of speech over there.

I'll tell you, undermine the propoganda and ideological force the terrorist groups have on the people.

And how exactly do we do that? "Show them how they are wrong?" If they (the people) are brainwashed, as you say, how can you change their minds? After all "how can you make a judgement against people who are just... brainwashed?" If you cannot make a judgement, you cannot show that what the people were going through was wrong, and therefore you cannot change their minds. Besides, the political and ideological force that influence the people also USE the people to protect themselves from any threat that deems to undermine them.

Originally posted by astrapol2
The USA send money to the middle east for oil ? Explain me this !
The only money the USA send to the middle east is precisely for the guns that allow these "dictators" to keep their power and in return allow them to purchase oil via american owned companies.
The first thing the USA should have been doing after 9-11 is stop their support tu Saudi Arabia. May I remind you that, like Ben Laden, most terrorists implied in 9-11 were saudi - not one iranian, not one iraqi, not one palestinian ! And that the saudi regime, which has alweys benefited from US support, is a far worst tyranny than Iran or even Syria (which do not have my sympathy anyway).

I agree with you that democracy should be the goal in Middle east. I think that only democracy and a decent life standard can turn people away from the radical option. But I do not think democracy can be imposed by force.

the money we send over there is to buy the oil, what they do with it we can no control. we do not send money over there marked "for weapons to oppress your people only!"

I agree with you on Saudi Arabia, we need to take them out too. I will sign that with you. so what do you think? airborne invasion? straight assault? assasination?

also I just thought about this. did it ever occur to you that Al Queada used saudis mainly becasue they were the easist to get into the US? since ther were no restrctions on saudis coming to the country? Iranians, syrians, palestinians, iraqis, that would have sent up a big red flag, saudis could get under the radar though, figurativly speaking of course.

Most of Iraq's military equipment and arms were funded by the USA in the 80's when we "needed them" to take down our then-biggest-enemy-of-the-state, Iran.

The US gov has a long, ignoble history of running interference in other regions of the world in order to get its way. It should come as no surprise to anyone that America is known as an arrogant, hypocritical bully that uses loans, cash, weapons, threats, and false promises to do whatever it wants.

Americans who track our gov's foibles are the real "patriots". They don't stand around in a state of hypnotic allegiance, denying and defending and waving the flag. Those who pay attention to this country's mistakes, calling -out the incompetence, greed, myopia and fraud in government, are wrongly accused of being "Anti-American", but nothing is farther from the truth. They are the guardians of country's moral conscience....

yes, people that knit pick every single thing the country does, and accuse the country of causing practically all things wrong in the world are the true patriots! In fact, people who support the country, and the soldiers who wear its uniform are nothing more than brainwashed robots, the true patriots are the michael moores and Eyefuls of the world! War is peace! slavery is freedom! Contempt is patriotism!

in fact this is the most patriotic thing I have ever heard, straight from the mouth of eyeful:

"It should come as no surprise to anyone that America is known as an arrogant, hypocritical bully that uses loans, cash, weapons, threats, and false promises to do whatever it wants"

man, thats so patriotic, I am about to stand up and salute! thanks for guarding the countrys moral concsciencene eyeful, where would we be without you?

Pointing out the bad mistakes this country has made, and trying to learn from them instead of skimming over them, or denying they never happened, is only a bad thing to folks like you.

Ask the tens of thousands of Viet Nam vets who are strung out and physically and emotionally ruined how patriotic they feel. Ask them how proud they are of a government that has betrayed them since their return. That's just for starters....

If you really wanted to learn from this country's mistakes (that's the point, dude...to try and prevent them from happening again) you'd be be spending more time using the internet for education, and less time trash talking Americans who don't agree with you.

READ. LEARN.

pointing them out? how about hanging your hat on them eyeful? and why dont you ask the hundreds of thousands of vietnam vets who are productive members of society and who love this country how proud they are of this country? Yes, wars screw people up, wars make cowards of big men and heros of the most unlikely of candidates. war is hell eyeful. and for you to accuse me of using the internet to trash alk people you dont agree with is like, well, like the pot calling the kettle black, although I hate that saying.

There's that simplistic reasoning again: they're either heroes or cowards. So, the men who lost limbs, lost faith, lost their minds, their dignity and their benefits -- essentially lost their lives -- they were the cowards?

If war is hell, why do we like it so muc

I'm sure I'm not understanding you. Again.

when did I say people who lost limbs were cowards eyeful? I didnt. And I dont like war, ahving been in it, I can say I hate war, but I am not naieve, I know that it is a part of human nature, and will always be part of human kinds life. it very easy to just say you oppose war and stick with that, becasue thats the noble thing to do, it is harder to try and understand why war is neccessary, and will always have a place in the world of men.

When you say "war will always have a place in the world of men" you hit on some key points:

1. if mankind resigns himself to war as the best means of reconciling conflict, mankind has made a consciencious choice. A civilized world without war is not science fiction, it is a real possibility if we choose it. If mankind is ever to reach its full potential, it will start with finding SMART and peaceful ways of resolving conflict.

2. saying that war is inevitable is like saying that ignorance or disease or misogyny are inevitable. Really? Why?
Don't you think man has the intelligence to control these things? Saying "that's just the way it is" is to give up the good fight to (pardon the phrase) "be all tha we can be"...

3. "war will always have a place in the world of man". BINGO! Obviously we need fewer hot headed, power hungry, tough ass, macho men in places of power, and MORE WOMEN. Maybe that's the key to the salvation of man...

as I said, its very easy to say such things as 'all things are possible", convincing everyone of it is something else. Of course I would love it if every single group on earth got along and no war was ever neccesary again, but it just wont happen. no matter how many times we listen to John lennons "Imagine", we will never convince cats and dogs to get along.

As usual, you've reduced an argument to its most trivial dimension.

(By the way, my cats get along just great with my dog. They grew up together. There is no fear or loathing, one for the other)

if we are to ever get everyone in the world to get along, it will have to be along the most trivial of lines, the more complex things are, the harder it is for people to agree on them.

Eyeful, like so many people, you seem to have a disconnect between your wishes and reality. War should always be the last resort, but it just can't be eliminated until you manage to change human nature. The fact of the matter is, there are people in this world that only understand force. Everything else to them is a sign of weakness. People like this cannot be negotiated with. You think Hitler would have voluntarily retreated into the borders of Germany? Of course not. Sometimes war, or at least the genuine threat of war, is the only answer. It's sad but true.

Lionel, you say:

"War should always be the last resort, but it just can't be eliminated until you manage to change human nature. The fact of the matter is, there are people in this world that only understand force. Everything else to them is a sign of weakness. People like this cannot be negotiated with. "

I'll reply with a few questions for you:

> do you honestly believe that "war was the last resort" with regard to our unprovoked attack on Iraq?

> do you think we humans have the ability to control our behaviors? If war is part of our human nature, so is our desire to live peacefully.

> do you think WE ourselves may have become the ones who "only understand force"; who see "everything else as a sign of weakness", and "who cannot be negotiated with"? To me that's the million dollar question that the new breed of hawks in this country need to answer....

Agee with eyeful. The comparison with Hitler is particularly wrong, especially now that we know that there were no WMD in Iraq. Hitler was fought not because he was a dictator but because he occupied half of Europe ! But in 2003 iraq was absolutely not a threat to the USA.

> do you honestly believe that "war was the last resort" with regard to our unprovoked attack on Iraq?

I think there are two separate questions there. One is whether or not Saddam needed to be dealt with. I say yes, you say no. The other question is, having decided to deal with him, is war the only way left? Yes. Clearly he had little interest in honest negotiations and the oil for food program was a complete farce. That's my point. We either decide that we don't care that he's a murderous tyrant because it's none of our business, or we decide to act. If we decide to act, then war, in this case, was the only answer.

> do you think we humans have the ability to control our behaviors? If war is part of our human nature, so is our desire to live peacefully.

Well sure we do. I think you're speaking in generalizations here. Clearly humanity on the whole prefers peace to war. Even most of the bullys of the world will retreat when push comes to shove. But that doesn't change the fact that there are some individuals in the world that only understand force. These people can't be dealt with any other way. To ignore that fact because of a desire for peace is to sentence innocent people to death.

> do you think WE ourselves may have become the ones who "only understand force"; who see "everything else as a sign of weakness", and "who cannot be negotiated with"? To me that's the million dollar question that the new breed of hawks in this country need to answer....

No, I don't think that.

Originally posted by astrapol2
The comparison with Hitler is particularly wrong, especially now that we know that there were no WMD in Iraq. Hitler was fought not because he was a dictator but because he occupied half of Europe ! But in 2003 iraq was absolutely not a threat to the USA.

Sheesh. The Hitler/Hussein comparison is completely valid because they were both meglomaniacal miscreants hell-bent on conquest and power. To sit there and pick the comparison apart because Hussein only invaded 20% of the countries Hitler did or because he only murdered 1/10th of the people Hitler did is to completely miss the point!

And in 1941, Hitler wasn't a threat to the USA either. But he was a threat to the peace and was dealt with accordingly (after Japan's attack finally convinced the isolationists that something needed to be done, that is.)

So, how was Saddam going to become "another Hitler" with a spineless military that was flattened in a week by the US, and no WMDs? And what were those "other countries" the Iraqis invaded? I can think of only one, and they hardly even knocked down a palm tree!

You really, really want a good reason to blow into Iraq, unprovoked, just to take down a 2-bit dictator?!

You may call this moment in US war history fabulous, I call it fiasco...

Iraq invaded Iran and Kuwait. And actually a little piece of Saudi Arabia too.

I'm not trying to say that Saddam turned out as bad as Hitler, I'm just saying they're both bad men who had the power to carry out their twisted desires. But I guess agreeing with me would bring you down to my "simpleminded" level, so whatever . . .

so because the mid east governments lie to their people about us they all should get a free pass so we dont make ourselves look bad? FIRST CALL! we are already hated blob.
And that would be who's fault?

if you didnt read what I wrote bliblob, I said take a look at the suicide bombing BEFORE AND AFTER the war and see when the drop off occured. I said that after saddam fell, the suicide bombings really dropped off big time.
Correct, it dropped, however I did notice that more than two times the Palestanians have been killed then Iraqis.

in case you didnt know, there area muslim arabs elected in the israeli government. how many jews are in the
PLO or Iranian goverment? Come to think of it, how many jews live in the middle east in countries other than israel, period?

I don't understand, Blib, do you have something against Israel?
I know I was exagerating, regardless, Iraqi diplomatic methods, are no better than any other middle eastern country, possibly worse. And yes, I do have something against Isreal. They are supported by the United States who's big mouth constantly spews freedom and equality, and Isreal is more bloody to their opponents than the Palestanians.


If we decide to act, then war, in this case, was the only answer.
You can't liberate people, they have to liberate themselves. I would have perfered if the Iraqi people were funded with food and weapons, instead of paying the Iraqi government. The CIA did it in other countries, and they are still doing it(although many of the people they placed in power I don't agree with).

You really, really want a good reason to blow into Iraq, unprovoked, just to take down a 2-bit dictator?!
Not to mention killing many innocents in the process.

Lionel, you say " The Hitler/Hussein comparison is completely valid ..."

I strongly disagree, as I've said. There's no way Hussein had the ability to become another Hitler. JUST NO WAY. That's like comparing a (beat up) Chevy Nova to Mercedes Benz.

Now you're changing your position?

Originally posted by eyeful
Now you're changing your position?

Not at all, we're just working on different levels. You say one's a Chevy and one's a Mercedes, I say they're both cars.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Not at all, we're just working on different levels. You say one's a Chevy and one's a Mercedes, I say they're both cars.

The point is that Hitler was a far, far, far, far greater threat than Sadaam. I see how you might compare them personality-wise, but that's only an effective point if you're debating with a bunch of psychologists.

But when you're debating whether deploying armies and declaring war is proper, the magnitude of the threat is a key factor. The fact is that Hitler and Sadaam are not even close to resembling one another when you talk about the degree of threat that each represented.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Sheesh. The Hitler/Hussein comparison is completely valid because they were both meglomaniacal miscreants hell-bent on conquest and power. To sit there and pick the comparison apart because Hussein only invaded 20% of the countries Hitler did or because he only murdered 1/10th of the people Hitler did is to completely miss the point!

And in 1941, Hitler wasn't a threat to the USA either. But he was a threat to the peace and was dealt with accordingly (after Japan's attack finally convinced the isolationists that something needed to be done, that is.)

But Iraq was not invaded on the basis of its leader's personality or past crimes. It was invaded to prevent a further war - which in fact Iraq never had the possibility or will to start.

And about WWII : I have recently seen american propaganda movies from 1941 to advertise war against germany. They were precisely a very convincing demonstration of the threat that a powerful German, controlling Europe and Africa, and allied to Japan, would be for the USA.
The USA started WWII after Japan attacked Pearl harbour. This led to Germany declaring war to the USA. The USA never attacked Germany "just because Hitler was a bad guy".

The USA never attacked Germany "just because Hitler was a bad guy".
Of course not, regardless of the fact that they knew it... even though the largest population didn't. It was for economic reasons mostly, if war wasn't started soon the depression could have finished the country off. Even though the US was selling weapons to Japan, Germany, England, France etc. It would have looked very bad if they got caught back then.