ZOMBIE FORUMS

You have a very selective memory Pyro- even the UN was saying that Hussein had plenty of weapons. Hans Blix himself said so, and he was about as anti-war as you can get.

But what does that matter, right?

-MiB

I guess my point was basically that, if the US's internal and external motives are shady at best, then it might not be good in the totally unselfish scheme of things to make the world a better place for it. Also, it seems to be a slippery slope to have essentially a convincing, nearly altruistic motive for war against any totalitarian, terrorist-harboring, or weapons-developing country. I'm not sure that I can be personally consistent with the objectivity required for the first argument, but while the second seems fairly unlikely, I have enough distrust of our government to be marginally convinced by it.

Basically the thing that turned me more moderate was being disgusted by uberliberals, and seeing that many conservatives (not, by any means, all) are quite rational and intelligent.

I've never been one for arguing from authority. The UN may or may not have said so (I honestly don't remember, since the UN is a fucking joke and I stopped paying attention to it about five years ago), but if it did it was undoubtedly predicated upon the same intelligence reports that got Bush, Blair, et al. in trouble more recently. If anyone had taken the time to do a serious, unbiased study of the situation, they would undoubtedly have found the same thing we've seen more recently: namely, "if there are any WMDs in Iraq, we haven't found them yet".

Then again, I think the liberation of the Iraqi people might have been a good enough excuse for war by itself, so what do I know?

P-M

(P.S: Iraqi lives may not be worth American ones, but a few hundred American soldiers KIA to save the lives of tens of thousands of Kurds, Marsh Arabs, et cetera sounds like a pretty good deal to me. It's what soldiers are for, fighting, is it not?)

Right Pyro. You know that an unbiased analysis by an intelligence agency would have come up with that info WITH YOUR EBIL MIND READING POWERS right?

Shush --;; that was the dumbest statement I've seen in a good long while, not to mention baseless.

-MiB

I think that an unbiased analysis by a competent intelligence agency (or other intelligence-gathering body, for that matter) would come up with the same thing we have, though possibly with a lower degree of certainty, because the fucking war has been over for half a year and we still haven't found anything worth basing a war on (yes, I know there were other reasons for the war, but the government and/or media were beating the drum on the WMD issue for months, so don't give me any bullshit about it being insignificant).

The key word is "unbiased". As in, unlikely to fake documents, relatively unaffected by the prevailing political climate, et cetera. That's how any intelligence agency should be, in fact, but it seems ours hasn't been in the past...

My point being that everyone honestly believed Saddam had WMDs, it hasn't been objected, it was a given etc.

What I'd like to know was why Saddam was acting like he had them? Did he actually have them and they were spirited away before the invasion? Was he bluffing, thinking that WMDs would prevent a war? Or was he being lied to by his own men, fooled into THINKING he had WMDs but never actually having them?

Regaurdless, the best intelligence from around the world and even Iraqi actions all pointed to them having WMDs. Thats just how it was =/

-MiB

Hi everyone! This is my first post here, so I'm going to try not to make a complete ass out of myself straight away...like that ever works.

First of all, what is/was the perceived threat in Iraq? WMD? Do you really think that "new" evidence just happened to bob to the surface after more than a decade since the first gulf war, like some "help me" note in a bottle? That threat did not develop overnight.

If it did, then it disappeared overnight.

The answer to terrorism, or the perceived threat of terrorism is not to strike first. This only works when you know where the enemy is. With terrorists, they are harder to pin down than Dick Cheney’s electric bills. Terrorism like this is not new, in fact it is well documented in relation to very significant historical events...for example WWII.

The Nazis came to power because there was economic and social turmoil in Germany, but more importantly a political leadership vacuum. They gained widespread support throughout the German population because of the massive civic unrest brought on by the reasons I have already stated. Their modern day equivalents are the terrorists that we are dealing with today. They have been created by an economic and political vacuum in the middle east (or better yet, the third world). The middle east is not the only region to sprout terrorism, amazingly enough wherever you have poverty and social unrest, you get terrorism.

After WWII, the Allies decided not to make the same mistake that they had at the end of WWI, which greatly contributed to the social unrest that lead to the authoritarian/fascist putsch. They gave money and clothing and food to the defeated axis powers, and concentrated on building stable governments and market economies.

What is my point? There are many similarities to what we are doing now in Iraq, to what took place in Germany and Japan. We are attempting to alleviate the major factors of social unrest that lead to the growth of terrorist organizations. In doing so, we are hoping that the rest of the middle east will take notice of the success that we believe will come from Iraq and follow the model.

But this is where the similarity ends. What we are seeing now in Iraq is the extension of the decades old question, "what if we had intervened before 1939?" Supporters of intervention would agree that had we done so, we would have saved millions of lives. That same ideal has led us into Iraq. The idea that in removing the threat in Iraq before it had time to come to full fruition is a direct logical result of WWII.

As I see it, the only problem was the delivery. The case was poorly made, the delivery was flawed, and the resulting plan of action in Iraq is shabby at best. While the theory may be good, our execution just sucked.

And there we disagree. I think its doing okay, its Bush's PR team that blows.

-MiB

Hmmmm. Brainfart, you make a coherent point, although I don't completely agree with it (the "poverty is the root cause of terrorism" argument falls a bit flat when you consider that all of the September 11th hijackers were comfortably middle-class - I would argue that Islam itself is a contributing factor to the commonness of terrorism in Islamic countries and areas).

Also, as MiB says, the delivery wasn't/isn't anywhere near as badly done as some would like you to believe - the people who protested loudly that the war should never happen are now the ones saying that the aftermath is a "quagmire," because that provides justification for their original argument.

But, all told, I think you're a good addition to this forum. I'll give you a DNI ("Do Not Initiate" - just put "DNI'ed by Kylaer" in your signature) so that nobody will hassle you about being new.

Okay, and I'll argue that Christianity is a contributing factor to the commonness of stupid people in America. Really, that's just total bullshit. Islam is not more likely to produce terrorists, it's the CULTURE that produces them, and they are not a region that lives strictly by the Koran/Q'uran/howeverthefuckit'sbeingspelledtoday.



That's worth even less than an Eronarn DNI...

You can find Islamic terrorism carried out in the entire Islamic swath, from Algeria to Indonesia. There is no common culture between all these areas, except that of Islam itself. Islam is the tie that connects the Algerian setting bombs in Paris to the Palestinian blowing himself up on a bus, to the Saudi flying an airplane into a skyscraper, to the Pakistani killing Hindus in Kashmir, and to the Indonesian blowing up a nightclub in Bali.

You say "region" as if all the terrorists came from a specific area, but they don't, unless you count the entire Islamic (whoops, there's that common thread again) swath as a single region.

You can find Islamic people in the whole world, and do we see Canadian Islamic terrorists? No, not really.



Compare their cultures, though. They all come from somewhat violent cultures, compared to, say, Europe or the United States. No, I'm not saying that the US is peaceful, I'm just saying that these countries are prone to fighting and lawlessness. They haven't been established as long, either, and many nations fight a large amount of wars soon after they are formed.



No, I say region in the sense of poorer, warlike countries. Let's face it- most of the countries you mentioned are poor in the scheme of things, and are more chaotic than Europe or the US, where you do not see many terrorists. Another thing is to consider is that some of those people are being oppressed. If they're being oppressed because of their religion, it's not their religion making terrorists, it is the *other side* that is making the terrorists.

Kylaer, thank you for the welcome! As for the initiation silliness, I served 5 years in the United States Navy...and I promise you no one here can offer up anything worse than being duck taped to a rolling chair and blasted down a runway by a fire hose, so let them initiate away.

There is something to be said for the ability to disagree with someone, and at the same time acknowledge the validity of their argument and welcome them into a group. So again, thank you!

As for the issue at hand...I still would have to argue that social unrest fueled by poverty, ignorance, and political instability is the major cause of terrorism. While there may be a plurality of terrorists that are Muslim, there are those (South America) who are not. However, while Islam may not be the most tolerant, or the most forgiving of the world’s religions, it is not the sole or even the primary source of terrorist motivation. I think it’s important to consider that with the social unrest that is rampant in the Middle East and Africa, religious fervor becomes a rallying point for those seeking stability.

As often as the Middle East has been referred to being medieval, I think it is ironic that so few people see the parallels between the modern day perception of the "medieval middle east" and the historical western European medieval culture. Historically, religious figureheads wielded great power in Western Europe, as late as the 19th century. Religion has always been an empowering force for the few, and an inspirational, driving sense of purpose and hope for the many. Fundamentalist, aggressive religious fervor has throughout the ages been the common symptom of ignorance, and a lynchpin for the miserable that are seeking something outside of a dismal existence.

A key modern day example would be the psychology of a suicide bomber.
There are two main motivational factors that would cause a person to be willing to kill themselves (aside from depression); moral belief and aspirations of glory. Both of these are intangible, and serve as motivational factors that can be used by others to accomplish their own agenda. The counter-balance to these forces would be an improved understanding of self-worth, self-image, and quality of life. You do not typically (there are of course exceptions to every rule) see affluent, well-adjusted people who are content with their lives blowing themselves up. At the same time, you rarely see these same people attacking others in the name of religion. While this is a gross generalization, I'm trying to save people eyesight here and am not going to go into every nuance. The point that I am trying to make is this: poverty and ignorance lead to social unrest, which leads to social protest, which leads typically to an uprising. While religious fervor can be a secondary factor, without the poverty, ignorance, and dissatisfaction there would not be the drive towards hardcore religious fundamentalism.

Kylaer, your point regarding the education and financial status of the 9/11 terrorists is valid. But instead of proving that Islam as a whole is corrupt, I think that it actually points to exactly what I have been pointing out. Again, using medieval Europe as an example, think of what happened when the populations of various countries became dissatisfied enough to rise up. Who were typically the targets of the violence that ensured? Historically, it was the royalty, who where proponents of the class system, and the oppressors at the upper level that system.

If you look at the Middle East now, it is easy to make the logical assumption that if what I have said is true then the toppling of governments is sure to come. In more than one case, this has happened within the last century. The problem however, is that the corrupt governments who keep the old medieval class system alive in the Middle East (Saudi Royal Family=modern day medieval royalty) would not survive on their own. They remain in power through oil money, western support (arms, training, turning of backs to human rights violations, etc.). While we do have our own vested interest in keeping these governments in power, as multiple governments collapsing in the area would wreak havoc on the global economy, you must understand that this would be hard thing to understand for some Arabs. In particular though, it is especially hard for those who are surrounded by the misery that the state of affairs in middle east has caused, have spent their entire lives in it, to be expected to take a fair and balanced look at the world in general.

I believe that is why those who do become educated, those who actually do learn that to some degree the Western World is responsible for the state of the region that they live in, react so vehemently when this knowledge is combined with the strong, fervently religious indoctrination that has become such a vital anchor in their lives.

Whew, I take a long time to get to the point. Let me just finish though by stating that this by no means makes it tolerable, less evil, or more cuddly what it is that we call terrorists. By stating this opinion, I am in no way attempting to excuse or even soften the relevance of this great evil. What I am attempting to do, is state what I see as the root of problem. And as we all know, if you just pull out the weed but leave the roots, a short time later you have another weed.

And no, comparing military action to bug spray is not a cute answer to that analogy, so whoever is thinking this just back away from your keyboard and no one will get hurt...