• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Creating Terrorists, Why do we continue to do it?

so you insist that osama bin forgotten was not trained by the us and saddam was not assisted by the USA in his rise to power

YouTube- CIA Talks About Bin Laden Being Trained By CIA on CNN

and

Saddam Hussein ? United States relations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

prove them wrong

We aided Stalin during the second world war. Do you feel that makes us culpable for all of Stalin´s atrocities thereafter?

I even heard we offered Hitler advice soon after taking power. If true, do we share responsibility for the Holocaust and WWII?

I once helped a dude move into another apartment and he later beat his girlfriend? Do I share responsibility for that beating?
 
Last edited:
Should we refrain from helping others because they may one day turn into homicidal maniacs and then we will be blamed for "training" them, etc.?
 
Should we refrain from helping others because they may one day turn into homicidal maniacs and then we will be blamed for "training" them, etc.?


We were not "helping" them. We were using them to further our interest. There is a big difference.
 
We were not "helping" them. We were using them to further our interest. There is a big difference.

I didn´t know psych patients were allowed the use of a computer and the internet. You need to be put into a more secured environment, like a padded room because you are totally, completely and undeniably out of your mind.
 
I didn´t know psych patients were allowed the use of a computer and the internet. You need to be put into a more secured environment, like a padded room because you are totally, completely and undeniably out of your mind.

I was looking for a rational reply but if insults are all you have, then that's all you have!
 
I was looking for a rational reply but if insults are all you have, then that's all you have!
Fascinating! You have found yet another way, after literally 121 pages of thread, constituting 1,207 separate replies, to be as completely "right" as virtually everything else on the internet across a wildly divergent series of political debate websites as is attributed to you. :eek:

Truly, congratulations on your complete mastery of the internet argument. The sound of one hand clapping is such a reward.................:monkey
 
Legacy of the Reagan/Thatcher Doctrine imo. Anti-Communist world policy, NOT pro-democracy.

man that's like saying WWII wasn't pro-democracy because it was anti-fascist. you have to beat the freedom's opponents if you wish for it to flourish.
 
so you insist that osama bin forgotten was not trained by the us and saddam was not assisted by the USA in his rise to power

YouTube- CIA Talks About Bin Laden Being Trained By CIA on CNN

and

Saddam Hussein ? United States relations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

prove them wrong

well, wiki claims exactly what i did:

"In 1968, it is claimed that the CIA encouraged a palace revolt among Baath party elements led by long-time Hussein mentor Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr.[4] The CIA however claims that the assertion that Saddam once received payments from the CIA was "utterly ridiculous". Many other experts including foreign affairs scholars also claim there is little to suggest U.S. involvement in Iraq in the 1960s.[5] Hussein's rise to leadership took a significant step in November 1969 when he assumed a number of senior posts in the Ba'ath Party and Iraqi government. The British embassy in Baghdad described Hussein as "the recognized heir-apparent" and "young," with an "engaging smile," "a formidable, single-minded and hard-headed member of the Ba'athist hierarchy, but one with whom, if only one could see more of him, it would be possible to do business".[6] In 1979, Hussein formally assumed the presidency when al-Bakr turned over the reins of power to his ambitious protégé.[4]"

which is that the US did not put saddam hussein into power. i am at a work computer, and can't watch your little video, but i look forward to dealing with it as well :)

however, since you want to use [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_assistance_to_Osama_bin_Laden]Wikipedia[/ame] as a link...

"U.S. government officials and a number of other parties maintain that the U.S. supported only the indigenous Afghan mujahideen. They deny that the CIA or other American officials had contact with the Afghan Arabs (foreign mujahideen) or Bin Laden, let alone armed, trained, coached or indoctrinated them. Scholars and reporters have called the idea the CIA backed Afghan Arabs (foreign mujahideen) "nonsense",[20] "sheer fantasy",[21] and "simply a folk myth."[22]

They argue that:

with a quarter of a million local Afghans willing to fight there was no need to recruit foreigners unfamiliar with the local language, customs or lay of the land
that with several hundred million dollars a year in funding from non-American, Muslim sources, Arab Afghans themselves would have no need for American funds
that Americans could not train mujahideen because Pakistani officials would not allow more than a handful of them to operate in Pakistan and none in Afghanistan[23];
that the Afghan Arabs were militant Islamists, reflexively hostile to Westerners, and prone to threaten or attack Westerners even though they knew the Westerners were helping the mujahideen.
Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri says much the same thing in his book Knights Under the Prophet's Banner.[24]

Bin Laden himself has said "the collapse of the Soviet Union ... goes to God and the mujahideen in Afghanistan ... the US had no mentionable role," but "collapse made the US more haughty and arrogant." [25]

According to CNN journalist Peter Bergen, known for conducting the first television interview with Osama bin Laden in 1997,

The story about bin Laden and the CIA — that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden — is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently. The real story here is the CIA did not understand who Osama was until 1996, when they set up a unit to really start tracking him.[22]

Bergen quotes Pakistani Brigadier Mohammad Yousaf, who ran the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Afghan operation between 1983 and 1987:

It was always galling to the Americans, and I can understand their point of view, that although they paid the piper they could not call the tune. The CIA supported the mujahideen by spending the taxpayers' money, billions of dollars of it over the years, on buying arms, ammunition, and equipment. It was their secret arms procurement branch that was kept busy. It was, however, a cardinal rule of Pakistan's policy that no Americans ever become involved with the distribution of funds or arms once they arrived in the country. No Americans ever trained or had direct contact with the mujahideen, and no American official ever went inside Afghanistan.[26]

Marc Sageman, a Foreign Service Officer who was based in Islamabad from 1987-1989, and worked closely with Afghanistan's Mujahideen, argues that no American money went to the foreign volunteers.

Sageman also says:[27]

Contemporaneous accounts of the war do not even mention [the Afghan Arabs]. Many were not serious about the war. ... Very few were involved in actual fighting. For most of the war, they were scattered among the Afghan groups associated with the four Afghan fundamentalist parties.

No U.S. official ever came in contact with the foreign volunteers. They simply traveled in different circles and never crossed U.S. radar screens. They had their own sources of money and their own contacts with the Pakistanis, official Saudis, and other Muslim supporters, and they made their own deals with the various Afghan resistance leaders."[28]

Vincent Cannistraro, who led the Reagan administration's Afghan Working Group from 1985 to 1987, puts it,

The CIA was very reluctant to be involved at all. They thought it would end up with them being blamed, like in Guatemala." So the Agency tried to avoid direct involvement in the war, ... the skittish CIA, Cannistraro estimates, had less than ten operatives acting as America's eyes and ears in the region. Milton Bearden, the Agency's chief field operative in the war effort, has insisted that "[T]he CIA had nothing to do with" bin Laden. Cannistraro says that when he coordinated Afghan policy from Washington, he never once heard bin Laden's name.[29]

Fox News reporter Richard Miniter wrote that in interviewes with the two men who "oversaw the disbursement for all American funds to the anti-Soviet resistance, Bill Peikney - CIA station chief in Islamabad from 1984 to 1986 - and Milt Bearden - CIA station chief from 1986 to 1989 - he found,

"Both flatly denied that any CIA funds ever went to bin Laden. They felt so strongly about this point that they agreed to go on the record, an unusual move by normally reticent intelligence officers. Mr. Peikney added in an e-mail to me: “I don’t even recall UBL [bin Laden] coming across my screen when I was there.” [30]


Other reasons advanced for a lack of a CIA-Afghan Arab connection of "pivotal importance," (or even any connection at all), was that the Afghan Arabs themselves were not important in the war but were a "curious sideshow to the real fighting."[31]

One estimate of the number of combatants in the war is that 250,000 Afghans fought 125,000 Soviet troops, but only 2000 Arab Afghans fought "at any one time".[32]

According to Milton Bearden the CIA did not recruit Arabs because there were hundreds of thousands of Afghans all too willing to fight. The Arab Afghan were not only superfluous but "disruptive," angering local Afghan with their more-Muslim-than-thou attitude, according to Peter Jouvenal.[33] Veteran Afghan cameraman Peter Jouvenal quotes an Afghan mujahideen as saying "whenever we had a problem with one of them [foreign mujahideen], we just shot them. They thought they were kings."

Many who traveled in Afghanistan — Olivier Roy,[34] Peter Jouvenal.[35] — reported of the Arab Afghans' visceral hostility to Westerners in Afghanistan to aid Afghans or report on their plight. BBC reporter John Simpson tells the story of running into Osama bin Laden in 1989, and with neither knowing who the other was, bin Laden attempting to bribe Simpson's Afghan driver $500 — a large sum in a poor country — to kill the infidel Simpson. When the driver declined, Bin Laden retired to his "camp bed" and wept "in frustration."
 
Last edited:
After what 100 pages all I got from this thread was one suggestion about defusing terrorism:

"The only long-term solution is to reduce Muslims' motivation to radicalize."

The above words to me are typical of the academic world-vague references that by their very nature of ambiguity mean nothing-the above suggestion to me is like saying the way to make it stop raining is to make it stop raining.

Terrorism is nothing more then the decision by humans to manifest and express their political will with violence-no more, no less.

The person or persons who choose violence have always had other options. To suggest the targets of their violence or others motivate them not to engage in violence means what? Appease them?

If a man has the urge to rape, am I to believe I am responsible for finding ways to motivate him into not having a sexual urge? Nonsense.

Terrorism is not a simple phenomena of simply being caused by political disadvantage. There are millions of people who grow up with severe hardships and limitations and they do not choose violence or terror. They motivated themselves.

I can motivate a non violent person. I can motivate a frustrated person who is by nature reluctantly violent but if a man is truly violent nothing is going to motivate them.

In the on-going dialogue of the Middle East we can see as evidenced on this forum that the choice of words we use can incite violence-if we use confrontational words, words that engage in negative generalizations and stereotypes, words that dehumanize and turn people into demons-yes those words can lead to violence-so we can by restating words in non adversarial language and without such references, encourage positive thinking yes-but such exercises only work with people capable of controlling their temper and wishing to engage in something other than violence.

I am here to say unfortunately that certain humans will be motivated by nothing but violence and death, anger and hatred. Call it biological, call it learned behaviour, call it a bit of both, there are people I believe that can not be changed and I do not think it is realistic to think we can use platitudes such as motivating terrorists to think this provides a solution.

Solutions require basic things such as building shared waterways-projects where both sides have an equally vested interest in having them succeed but again that requires people who do not want to be violent.

The choice not to be violent can not be predicated on the person who is being violent molly coddled. It is up to that violent person to say there is a better way-they have to make that decision.

No you do not change a spoiled brat's behaviour when he has a tantrum by reasoning with him. It doesn't work that way. That is wishful thinking.

I can reach out to moderates and peace loving people and people who choose rational and logical thought processes but no I can not motivate terrorists nor would I try. To understand a terrorist is to understand someone who is motivated-motivated by hatred, anger, power, ego, vanity, narcissism, arrogance. You don' unmotivate them by dangling candies in their face or speaking kindly to them.

You take down a terrorist if you have to or if you can't do that contain their movement and weapons and try get to those who have not given in to terrorism by reaching out to them. Terrorists are not who needs to be motivated-it is the people they terrorize that do.
 
After what 100 pages all I got from this thread was one suggestion about defusing terrorism:

"The only long-term solution is to reduce Muslims' motivation to radicalize."

You need to read through the 2008 Rand Report Report on ending terrorism, commissioned by the Pentagon.

It is the most in-depth to date on the study of terrorism and how its ended.
 
You need to read through the 2008 Rand Report Report on ending terrorism, commissioned by the Pentagon.

It is the most in-depth to date on the study of terrorism and how its ended.

I did make a point to read it and I concur with you in the sense that I too am of the personal opinion its an important report, but where we disagree with it is I don't think it sheds anything new or insightful.

With due respect I find the comments and observations of soldiers in the conflict zone and civilians living in the conflict zone more meaningful in terms of trying to understand and get into the heads of terrorists.

I am one of these people that does not take much stock in so called experts. I prefer basic observations of cause and effect on the ground and by trying to understand the environment and its effects on subsequent generations.

To me terrorism is ancient but it mutates in shape and expression constantly and so often these reports we read are obsolete before they have a chance to be finished. In virtually an hour, an entire theatre of conflict and the parameters from which behaviour is predicted can change.

What so called terrorist experts fail to estimate is time and time again is why two humans exposed to the exact same conditions and circumstances can not be predicted to act the same way and in fact do not.

I myself have witnessed coming from the same violent environment which probably you would term one that created terrorism different people emerge and no not all of them chose violence or terror. I am also telling you my 5 university degrees in this area do not substitute for what is understood by being on the ground and witnessing and understanding the language and culture of the conflicted parties. You have to literally feel the same fear they do, the same despair, the same cynicism and then the place where the mind goes when there is nothing else to feel.

I have seen some grown men break down and others not even flinch at the same stress. I have seen enough to know there is no such thing as being an expert on terrorism-at best people can predict from one moment to perhaps the next who is in charge and carrying out the orders and where they get their supplies from.

The individual psyche of each terrorist has similiarities but there are also so many different variations some caused by genetics and others learned behaviour and I suspect genetics plays a far more important part in shaping the psyche and temperment then some of us think.

What I am saying is it is simplistic to think you can motivate people not to be terrorists and in fact it is an absurd thing to say if you met and understood the motivation of certain people that I have you would most certainly define as terrorists.

I have sat across from someone who would feel nothing a true sociopath so to speak as many terrorists are. Behind every terrorist sent to blow himself up is the planner, the sociopathic narcissist controlling him and giving him his orders. That guy who manipulates, no you would not motivate him or change his behaviour and you can torture them all you want they never break they just state one lie on top of the other/. No you could not bribe them-there is never enough money. You can tryflatter them but that only works momentarily. They would take your money, lead you to believe you have caused them to see the light and then when you got close enough to pray with one of them he would choke you to death and poke out your eyes and play with them. Yes he would kill his own children, wife, mother. Of course.

Terrorists are not downtrodden misunderstood people. They are violent humans. Why and how they became that way is besides the point-the fact they are is.

Yes you might be able to get to children before they get programmed to hate but to do that you do what-replace their parents? Replace their religion? Get ride of their culture? Get their parents jobs?

Not going to happen.

Changes require and I hate to say it sometimes an entire generation written off, maybe even two. Sound cold? It is but it may be reality.

The generation in the conflict plus their children are infected by the conflict. Maybe just maybe you can get to their grandchildren.

The Rand report with due respect reflects a bias of its writers who seek to justify being paid hefty contracts to provide intelligence analysis.

Its far easier to go talk to the civilians in the conflict or sit in the middle of the conflict and get spit on with their hatred to understand what causes it.

You want to learn what makes a dog violent? Why? The fact is you don't turn your back on it and no once a dog goes bad the best you might be able to do is quarantine it. No it would not turn back into a cuddly lap dog if you throw it some money in a Swiss bank account.
 
Last edited:
I did make a point to read it and I concur with you in the sense that I too am of the personal opinion its an important report, but where we disagree with it is I don't think it sheds anything new or insightful.

I find it rather significant to know why our 9 years of "war on terrror" has been a failure.

With due respect I find the comments and observations of soldiers in the conflict zone and civilians living in the conflict zone more meaningful in terms of trying to understand and get into the heads of terrorists.

And how has that worked out for us over the last 9 years? A failure that cost us 6,000 lives and over a trillion dollars of taxpayer debt, so far.

I am one of these people that does not take much stock in so called experts. I prefer basic observations of cause and effect on the ground and by trying to understand the environment and its effects on subsequent generations.


To me terrorism is ancient but it mutates in shape and expression constantly and so often these reports we read are obsolete before they have a chance to be finished. In virtually an hour, an entire theatre of conflict and the parameters from which behaviour is predicted can change.

What so called terrorist experts fail to estimate is time and time again is why two humans exposed to the exact same conditions and circumstances can not be predicted to act the same way and in fact do not.

I myself have witnessed coming from the same violent environment which probably you would term one that created terrorism different people emerge and no not all of them chose violence or terror. I am also telling you my 5 university degrees in this area do not substitute for what is understood by being on the ground and witnessing and understanding the language and culture of the conflicted parties. You have to literally feel the same fear they do, the same despair, the same cynicism and then the place where the mind goes when there is nothing else to feel.

I have seen some grown men break down and others not even flinch at the same stress. I have seen enough to know there is no such thing as being an expert on terrorism-at best people can predict from one moment to perhaps the next who is in charge and carrying out the orders and where they get their supplies from.

The individual psyche of each terrorist has similiarities but there are also so many different variations some caused by genetics and others learned behaviour and I suspect genetics plays a far more important part in shaping the psyche and temperment then some of us think.

What I am saying is it is simplistic to think you can motivate people not to be terrorists and in fact it is an absurd thing to say if you met and understood the motivation of certain people that I have you would most certainly define as terrorists.

I have sat across from someone who would feel nothing a true sociopath so to speak as many terrorists are. Behind every terrorist sent to blow himself up is the planner, the sociopathic narcissist controlling him and giving him his orders. That guy who manipulates, no you would not motivate him or change his behaviour and you can torture them all you want they never break they just state one lie on top of the other/. No you could not bribe them-there is never enough money. You can tryflatter them but that only works momentarily. They would take your money, lead you to believe you have caused them to see the light and then when you got close enough to pray with one of them he would choke you to death and poke out your eyes and play with them. Yes he would kill his own children, wife, mother. Of course.

Terrorists are not downtrodden misunderstood people. They are violent humans. Why and how they became that way is besides the point-the fact they are is.

Yes you might be able to get to children before they get programmed to hate but to do that you do what-replace their parents? Replace their religion? Get ride of their culture? Get their parents jobs?

Not going to happen.

Changes require and I hate to say it sometimes an entire generation written off, maybe even two. Sound cold? It is but it may be reality.

The generation in the conflict plus their children are infected by the conflict. Maybe just maybe you can get to their grandchildren.

The Rand report with due respect reflects a bias of its writers who seek to justify being paid hefty contracts to provide intelligence analysis.

Its far easier to go talk to the civilians in the conflict or sit in the middle of the conflict and get spit on with their hatred to understand what causes it.

You want to learn what makes a dog violent? Why? The fact is you don't turn your back on it and no once a dog goes bad the best you might be able to do is quarantine it. No it would not turn back into a cuddly lap dog if you throw it some money in a Swiss bank account.

Right ignore the experts and you get what we got, a failed effort.

What we have done for 9 years has only resulted in an increase in terrorists attacks world wide.

So just do more of the same and expect different results. That is exactly how we got bogged down in our war against Vietnam until the American people wisely pulled the plug.

And we've spent more taxpayer money on this failed war than we did on the failed war in Vietnam.

And we have been trading partners with 'the evil empire" for decades!
 
Last edited:
I find it rather significant to know why our 9 years of "war on terrror" has been a failure.


It's only a failure to people who like to pretend that there's a magic wand yet to be used. Consider this....there was far more years where we did nothing in the Middle East. Were those "failures" too?

This is a process. It is a process that will engage the military, our funds, our diplomacy, our insistence on education, and so on. Declaring "failure" every step of the way really doesn't do much for politicians except gain votes from the average dumb ass who pretends that there is a magic wand yet to be used.
 
It's only a failure to people who like to pretend that there's a magic wand yet to be used. Consider this....there was far more years where we did nothing in the Middle East. Were those "failures" too?

There were less al Qaeda and less terrorist attacks world wide before our "war on terror." So, we have in effect only made the situation worse. Yeah, I consider that a failure.

This is a process. It is a process that will engage the military, our funds, our diplomacy, our insistence on education, and so on. Declaring "failure" every step of the way really doesn't do much for politicians except gain votes from the average dumb ass who pretends that there is a magic wand yet to be used.

Exactly what the dumbasses said about Vietnam. We have to defeat the evil empire or the rest of the world will fall to communism. Pay no attention to the 50,000 Americans we sacrificed or the million Vietnamese we had to kill, it is a process!

So, what happened after the American public pulled the plug on our war, we became trading partners with "the evil empire."

Scary! :shock:
 
Last edited:
There were less al Qaeda and less terrorist attacks world wide before our "war on terror." So, we have in effect only made the situation worse. Yeah, I consider that a failure.

Well, consider again and this time go beyond simple doom and gloom that so many celebrate as truth. First, unless you understand our enemy, you will see failure everytime you read a reporter's headline because "Vermont doesn't exist in the desert." Second, it is a historical fact that many wars create more enemies until the situation betters. And third, the fact that you see far more intel reporting and situational awareness in the media is because before 9/11 Americans didn't care about what the military was already facing throughout the 90s when the media could have printed a better reality.

Of course there were "less" Al-Queda before our "War on Terror" (in numbers and in your minds attention). But most of their membership today consists of people who are merely taking advantage of a situation to fight for their god. They have no opportunities back home at success. No futures. No education that will take them beyond beggar or herder. No money. And their region is worsing in terms of fresh water, economics, and religious standard. But they also have no hope to win. They only care about the fight and a glorious death, which is in accordance to a Muhammad's Sunnah. If they wish to die so badly, let them. Those in Europe that have added their terror towards the Al-Queda movement only do so out of advantage. If we pulled out of Afghanistan today, most will simply dissapear. Common sense should prevail here, but the few will remain and they will plot terror just as they always did when we pretended that it's only a phase leading up to 9/11 (imagine when this region has nuclear arms to toss around at the card table). Before our "War on Terror" our role was to play as victim to every attack as the faithful pleased Allah and "defended" Islam. Al-Queda has and will continue to use our efforts to fight back to recruit and "prove" their fight legitimate. Once again...this is the process. And as long as the Middle East continues to glorify their failed culture, they will fight and find recruits until the end of time.

The situation is far from worse as you wish to believe unless you want it to be so. But I remind you of the great idiocy of the typical pundit who has been unable to analyze a situation of war correctly....

1) "Nobody in history has ever taken down Afghanistan"
2) "The road to Baghdad will be paved with American blood"
3) "Iraqis will never vote"
4) "Iraq is in the midst of a civil war"
5) "Iraq is unwinnable"


These are words from prominant figures. Most of which have never worn a uniform and has very little understanding of the culture we face. Time after time, the morons and naysayers have predicted failure and celebrated every stumble as if proof. In the end, they were silent after the Tali-Ban got whipped and chased into the mountains. They were silent when Americans took down Saddam Hussein with ease. They were silent when Iraqis came out and voted. They crawled back into their holes when the "Great Iraqi Civil War" simply vanished (because that's exactly what civil wars do). And they have been very silent since Americans began pulling out and Iraqis have been able to hold just fine...even after their weekend elections. Watch how loud they are whjen declaring failure and how silent they are when it comes to eating their words or congratulating success. Dozens of bad guys killed in a fire fight, but one American means that we are losing? Their inability to re-organize beyond rumors and a reporter's reach for fame means that we are failing?

But here we go again. Now, our entire "War on Terror" is a failure. I guess in the 1970s our Cold War was a failure too because of Vietnam.

Given that we have a wealth of intel on virtually everything terrorist related, their recruitment of dumb asses and ignorant people of absent prospect in their culture is hardly creating a "failed" effort. Their network has been shattered and now rely upon a group somewhere attacking something and giving Al-Queda some credit so that they can be feared. They are based in caves like animals or in wastelands hiding behind civilians. Wherever they appear they are slaughterd. Their plots are continually thwarted. Muslim governments are under more and more pressure to choose between their radicals and the outside economical prosperous world. More and more voices of moderation are getting air time. If you require further proof handed to you regarding the activities in Arab countries since 2003, I can deliver....because I look at the situation beyond the reporters headlines and the black and white figures that are very insignificant to the whole.

Again...this is the process. The idea that this and all future wars were supposed to be like the drive-by Gulf War (victory in 30 days) was never practical and it only encouraged people to seek every step as "failure."


Exactly what the dumbasses said about Vietnam.

Another pundit bit of lunacy. Wasn't Iraq supposed to be our Vietnam? What happened to that? Now it's Afghanistan or is it the entire effort since 9/11? Do you realize that without the military deployed anywhere, this "War on Terror" will still be going on on different levels? The failure of our government and others was the prospect that we could ignore what has been brewing in the Middle East for decades. Were it not for 9/11, we would be ignoring it still as the military fought them without American support (if we even have this anymore from the fickle T.V. masses) or knowledge. I would state that 9/11 was proof of our failure to address it. But you state that now, with no attacks on our soil and a complete strangle hold on Al-Queda's efforts, we are failing? You have it backwards.

We have to defeat the evil empire or the rest of the world will fall to communism. Pay no attention to the 50,000 Americans we sacrificed or the million Vietnamese we had to kill, it is a process!

Well, the Soviet Union occupied much of the world with communism by the 1950s. And their attempts to gain favor in the MIddle East would have seen them powerful and victorious over America eventually. The fight against the Soviet Union lasted decades and it was a process that involved pretty much everything we are engaged in with Islamic extremists and radicals. But stay focused.

Vietnam was a country with the idea that all of Asia was to follow. This "War on Terror" is about an entire region and this is absolute truth. Their recruits come from all over. They have based in Sudan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Their plotters are everywhere, because this region is wide, as is the failure of their culture. Those Muslims that journeyed to Iraq to slaughter their fellow Muslims (which people are fond of blaming Americans for) came from all over. This reality is very much about a process in which their is no light switch, magic wand, or single fix.

So, what happened after the American public pulled the plug on our war, we became trading partners with "the evil empire."

Tis diplomacy. We were friends with the Soviet Union for WWI and WWII. We could just still be at war with them if you prefer. We went to war against Iraqis twice. We used to be at war with Britian. Germany was an enemy I think sometime in the past. Japan even attacked us and we dropped atom bombs. Wupping up on our enemies always seems to make them respect us.



Scary! :shock:

What's so scary? Are you aware that history's longest lasting "peace" periods have only come after war? That even Europe's most prosperous and peaceful period in their history was after WWII? That nuclear weapons for Islamic radicals and extremists are only right around the corner?
 
Catawba,

This is the situation as understood by the military. "It's all about oil" and "Bush lied" and "we are creating terrorists" and "they hate us for our bombs" and "they hate us for our culture" are phrases for the average guy sitting in America land. The definitions below come from very prominent experts of the region, it's culture and religion. Briefs and classes involving this material are presented to military personnel for an over all sense of what is going on so that we don't get caught up in the politics of dumbasses in Washington who would rather earn personal or Party points at the expense of the effort. Also, there is a process at many levels. When I state that this is regional, I mean exactly that. The military, government contractors, and the CIA are dealing with Al-Queda all over the region and the world. Afghanistan and Iraq are only a matter of great military focus because that deals with the armed morons who rush to their deaths. The media focuses only on Iraq and Afghanistan because that's where the drama is.



1) Root Cause - The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928 by Hassan al Banna and the vast majority of terrorists are members, however most Radicals are not. The majority of Islamic Radicals are "the sea from which the terrorists swim" and are revered. The cancer of Radical Islam grows where socio-economic conditions are poor; governments are repressive and unable to provide essential social services, such as providing adequate oversight of their educational system….or have allowed / sanctioned Radical Islamic curricula. Islamic fundamentalism has given an aim and form to the otherwise aimless and formless resentment and anger of the Muslim masses at the forces that have devalued their traditional values and loyalties and, in the final analysis, robbed them of their beliefs, their aspirations, their dignity, and to an increasing extent even their livelihood. Frustrated by the complete inability to exert any discernible degree of control over their immediate circumstances, frustrated adherents of Radical Islam, goaded by Radical Islamic Clerics, will resort to terrorism as the only avenue to effect religious, social, political, and economic change.

2) Short Term Solution - Radical Islam is a precursor to terrorism. It lays the ideological and religious foundation for Islamic-inspired violence and, as such, represents a long-term threat to the national security of the United States of America. The ongoing Global War on Terrorism targets the current generation of terrorists; however, unless the ideology that spawned them is also countered the long-term threat to the U.S. will exponentially grow with time.

3) Long Term Solution - Thus, when dealing with a culture in which only faith and family matter to our enemies, we insist on making war on governments and negotiating with political organizations that are no more than mobs with diplomatic representation. When doing this, we are punching thin air. Note...Some of these are active operations and some are general sentiments of the intel community.

a - Acknowledge the threat posed by Radical Islam.

b - We are not targeting Islam, just the Radical Islamists – we better say so.

c - Support the moderate voices (indirectly).

d - Focus our efforts on the long term enemy = the creation of more Radical Islamists.

e - Garner worldwide support for this effort…..and at least engage in the IO war more aggressively. Counter Al Jazeera and like Radical Islamic media….without appearing to do so.

f - Designate DOS (Department of State) as lead agency against countering Radical Islam.

g - Following recognition of the threat – fund the programs necessary to counter it.

h - Reorganize foreign assistance funding and efforts creating DOS “Regional Directors” that actually control assets = Reorganize DOS along Geographical vice Functional Lines (much like DoD Combatant CDRs).

i - Review Current Foreign Policy Focusing on Taking the Political Ammunition Away From the Radical Extremists.

j - Resolve Israeli / Palestinian and Indian / Pakistani disputes.

k - We must succeed in both Afghanistan and Iraq….and ensure these are perceived as successes in the Muslim world (Their ability to maintain control and push forward with democracy is closer to Muslim hearts than a radical's prescribed oppression with a gun.)

l - Counter Radical Islamic Media = Counter Al Jazeera and like Radical Islamic media….without appearing to do so.

m - Reestablish funding for cultural outreach programs cut following end of “Cold War.”

n - Give voice to moderate Islamic leaders (indirectly).

o - Support Programs Dedicated to Providing Educational Reform in Threatened Countries. (The official Saudi newspaper, Ain Al-Yaqeen, described royal expenditures on “education” as “astronomical.” (Mar 2002) They built 1500 mosques, 202 colleges, and 2000 Muslim schools. These were established throughout non-Islamic countries in Europe, North and South America, Australia, and Asia. None in the Middle East.)

p - Governments with strong governmental oversight over the education of their young must be rewarded; likewise those that do not provide such oversight must be punished.

q - AT HOME = Constitutional / Legal Review of activities surrounding fundamentalist religions that pose a domestic threat, – we face a new threat and our legal system is ill equipped to handle it. (Many Americans would rather recognize their freedom to preach hate a spit venom above protecting their own asses from the repercussions of it.)


More problems in the MENA Region....

- The populations within the next 25 years…
Egypt’s population will increase by 38%
Jordan’s by 67%
Syria’s by 58%
Saudi Arabia’s by 94%
Pakistan’s by 69%, and
Israel’s by 39%

- Decreasing Fresh Water Supplies: MENA region faces precipitous decrease in per capita fresh water supply.

- Economic doldrums / disaster: Regional unemployment for ages 15-35 = 40%…and growing. ….mostly males….who can’t afford to get married……...

- No known solutions to these problems, save one = Jihad.

Only democracies have shown agility to deal with such problems. In the absence of answers victims will look for scapegoats. Radical Islamic clerics provide the scapegoat for the problems facing the Arab/Islamic world. "Their problems are the fault of the West, specifically the US." This has always been a falsehood when considering the truth...

- The Soviet Union were the oppressors of Muslims
- The Turks abolished 1400 years of the caliphate
- Muslims have slaughtered far more Palestinians in two events than Israelis have in 60 years of conflict
- Saudi Arabia was never colonized by Europeans and have always been under Muslims control

Yet we are the "Great Satan?" For what exactly? The freest and most successful Muslims live in the U.S. It was the U.S. that saved Musloims in Bosnia and Kuwait. Were it not for the U.S., Muslims in the Middle East would have suffered the same fate of Muslims in the Caucusus under the Soviet Union. Instead of dropping in two dictators, Iraq and Afghanistan have been given a chance at democracy and free choice via American blood. Doesn't it say something about their bull **** when we consider that Al-Queda rose out of the Gulf War where Americans saved Muslim Kuwaitis from Muslim Iraqis? And what Muslim did anything to stop Arab Muslims in Sudan from slaughtering non-Arab Muslims when an American President and a British Prime Minister was calling upon the UN to do something? Either we find a way to support the affected countries in finding their own solutions to these problems or we deal with them in the next nuclear Cold War, where religion, not economic differences, dictate their resolve.
 
Last edited:
We aided Stalin during the second world war. Do you feel that makes us culpable for all of Stalin´s atrocities thereafter?

No, but we didn't install Stalin into power either.

I even heard we offered Hitler advice soon after taking power. If true, do we share responsibility for the Holocaust and WWII?

Again though, we didn't put Hitler in power.

I once helped a dude move into another apartment and he later beat his girlfriend? Do I share responsibility for that beating?

Not really. You didn't install him into any position of power; that was assumed by his own actions.

We aren't responsible for the actions of Saddam or Bin Laden either as they were (are) responsible for their own actions. But you cannot deny that because of our actions, we had directly helped them get into a position of power in which they could extract their various methods of oppression and murder. It's one reason why we shouldn't be so enthusiastic about interventionist policies.
 
Of course there were "less" Al-Queda before our "War on Terror"

Isn't the purpose of war to defeat the enemy?

And as long as the Middle East continues to glorify their failed culture, they will fight and find recruits until the end of time.

And as long as we provide the reason for wrath by the Middle East, they will continue glorify and support those that fight our occupation!

The situation is far from worse as you wish to believe unless you want it to be so.

That's what they said about Vietnam, and what happened after the American public pulled the plug on the war? We became trading partners with the evil empire!

But I remind you of the great idiocy of the typical pundit who has been unable to analyze a situation of war correctly....

1) "Nobody in history has ever taken down Afghanistan"

Then why are we trying to do it?
2) "The road to Baghdad will be paved with American blood"

Due to the Persian Gulf War and our sanctions that were enforced until we attacked them again in 2003, they were one of the most defenseless countries on the planet.

3) "Iraqis will never vote"

Iraqis voted in Saddam! And I trust Iraqi elections just as much as I trust the elections by our puppet government in Afghanistan. They each are credited with being some of the most corrupt governments in the world.


4) "Iraq is in the midst of a civil war"

They were, our occupation and bribes with American taxpayer money have kept them at bay. That is all. That is why we are still there!


5) "Iraq is unwinnable"

Again, Iraq was of no threat after the Persian Gulf war. Grenada would be most comparable war in terms of defensive capability. Yet still after 7 years it requires our continued occupation to prevent its people from toppling our puppet government there.


Now, our entire "War on Terror" is a failure.

That was the opinion of the conservative Rand Corp. in the Report on Terrorism commissioned by the Pentagon.

Again...this is the process.

Yep, that's what they said about Vietnam too.
Wasn't Iraq supposed to be our Vietnam? What happened to that?

It still is. We still have over a hundred thousand troops there and it has already cost more than Vietnam..

Now it's Afghanistan or is it the entire effort since 9/11? Afghanistan is nothing compared to the importance of protecting and controlling the oil in Iraq. That is why a much greater majority of our troops and military spending went to Iraq.

Do you realize that without the military deployed anywhere, this "War on Terror" will still be going on on different levels?
The failure of our government and others was the prospect that we could ignore what has been brewing in the Middle East for decades.

Yeah, its finally gained support in the Middle East after we killed a half million innocent Iraqis with our sanctions.
Well, the Soviet Union occupied much of the world with communism by the 1950s. And their attempts to gain favor in the MIddle East would have seen them powerful and victorious over America eventually.

Why is that? I thought your argument was that we attacked the Middle East because they were a threat, not because of their oil?
Their recruits come from all over. They have based in Sudan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Their plotters are everywhere, because this region is wide, as is the failure of their culture.

Exactly, everyone wants to get in on taking shots at the country that killed a half-million innocent Iraqis, and invades and occupies countries to control another country's property.
Wupping up on our enemies always seems to make them respect us.

No wonder we have one of the highest crime rates of any country! Like father, like son!

What's so scary?

That the our government will continue to kill innocent people in my name for oil.
 
Last edited:
Isn't the purpose of war to defeat the enemy?

So the war is over? When the war is over we will have defeated our enemy. War is not a series of perfect scenarios nor is it without ups and downs. However, this is not the kind of war that starts and ends in quick fashion like the Gulf War. -This is generational. There will be no table of surrender or terms agreed upon by the enemy like with Japan. -We do not fight a nationality in uniform. They will simply tire of being slaughtered and wither away as their local population grows more and more disenchanted with the theme of radicalism and extremism.

And as long as we provide the reason for wrath by the Middle East, they will continue glorify and support those that fight our occupation!

Question....do we deal with the religious fanatics or their governments? I'm afraid what they demand is not theirs to demand. If their governments want us to defend Saudi and Kuwaiti oil, then we will do just that. If they want us to hang out on a base because of the Bin Ladens in their civilization, then that is what we will do. Their temper tantrums are unacceptable. Al-Queda was born out of disgust the the House of Saud preferred the West's protection over their own Islamists fighters....not because we occupied anything.

For a further understanding of what we provide in regards to their wrath...type "Qutb" into Wikipedia and grow beyond the sophomoric protests.

That's what they said about Vietnam, and what happened after the American public pulled the plug on the war? We became trading partners with the evil empire!

Well that is the way the world works. Would you prefer an eternity of warfare with our enemies? Japan, Germany, Britian, France, Spain...all former enemies. Partners become enemies and become partners again. This is diplomacy.

Then why are we trying to do it?

We've already done it. The ignorant statement that "Afghanistan's never fallen" or that even the great and mighty "Soviet Union failed in Afghanistan" was supposed to translate to American failure. Well, the fact is that it didn't. The Tali-Ban got crushed right out of power and democracy seats the government in their place. Those pundits that prophesized defeat quite ignorantly fell very silent and went on to declare and prophesize other non-failures. In the end, a failed Afghanistan will be yet another Muslim failure. We aren't there to make a 51st state.

Our goal was to shatter the Tali-Ban, wreck Al-Queda of a home base, and provide the Afghani people with the opportunity to succeed. We can only do so much before we have to acknowledge that Muslims must eventually do for themselves. But as long as their inadequacy to deal with their garbage provides that garabage the ability to plot and carry out attacks against our people, they will see our boots on the ground.

Due to the Persian Gulf War and our sanctions that were enforced until we attacked them again in 2003, they were one of the most defenseless countries on the planet.

Yet, the ignorant prophesized American blood all the way to Baghdad.


Iraqis voted in Saddam! And I trust Iraqi elections just as much as I trust the elections by our puppet government in Afghanistan. They each are credited with being some of the most corrupt governments in the world.

Germans voted in Hitler. Your point? Muslim governments are among the most corrupt on earth without the current internal struggle in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is the process. Even the high and mighty French embarked on this new thing called democracy via a process of blood and intense violence. Even the French voted in Napolean. Again, what is your point?


They were, our occupation and bribes with American taxpayer money have kept them at bay. That is all. That is why we are still there!

Oh...were they? Is that what you saw on T.V.? There was no Civil War in Iraq. Aside from dealing in definitions, civil wars don't simply vanish. But "Civil War" sold newspapers didn't it? What occurred was street violence between factions of tribes and did not include a civilizational divide into arms. It went away as fast as it began. Civil Wars do not do this. History is full of civil wars to draw upon for reference. You may as well declare the L.A. riots a civil war.


Again, Iraq was of no threat after the Persian Gulf war. Grenada would be most comparable war in terms of defensive capability. Yet still after 7 years it requires our continued occupation to prevent its people from toppling our puppet government there.

The vast majority of all security has been under Iraqi forces for quite some time with considerable success. Our occupation is not what you think, which I am beginning to believe is largely based on speculation and ignorance. I don't believe you have any idea what Iraq was about beyond the BS of WMD protest. Your complaining about sanctions should clue you in on the position America was in.


That was the opinion of the conservative Rand Corp. in the Report on Terrorism commissioned by the Pentagon.

Read it again without the sophomoric civilian interpretation. The military is full of evnironment climate reports that report the situation on the ground and within the intel community. None of it means "failure" or "success." But this is my point about you....without the aid of reporters, headlines, and reports of current operational climate, do you have the ability to analyze for yourself? According to your posts, it is the Rand Corp that has opinions....Catawba merely regurgitates an eroneous interpretation.

Yep, that's what they said about Vietnam too.

Why don't you just slash your wrists over Vietnam already? Everything is a process. This "Vietnam" scenario protestors cling to when it comes to virtually everything we ever do since is tired and lame. Do your own analysis. Iraq was never a Vietnam scenario. Afghanistan is closer to a comparison if one must build themselves a stage.

You know what bothers me so much about protestors" They always seem to protest the wrong damn things.

It still is. We still have over a hundred thousand troops there and it has already cost more than Vietnam.

It never was to those who had the ability to be more than simple. The idea of the "quagmire" was what fueled the ignorant towards having to have a Vietnam comparison. Without the "quagmire" (which never existed) it is still a Vietnam? Let it go.

Afghanistan is nothing compared to the importance of protecting and controlling the oil in Iraq. That is why a much greater majority of our troops and military spending went to Iraq.

Of course. Are you shocked that oil is important to the world? But consider how much easier it would have been to simply exchange Hussein with another dictator. The fact that Iraq was given an opportunity to grow a democracy should shake you past the sophomoric "it's all about oil and nothing but the oil." The fact that oil hasn't been pouring in cheaper than ever should tell you that the mere control of oil was and is only one factor to this bigger effort in this wrecked nuclear bound region.

Yeah, its finally gained support in the Middle East after we killed a half million innocent Iraqis with our sanctions.

You mean the UN sanctions. All the more reason to topple Hussein and correct what the entire West screwed up in the Gulf War when they paved the path back to Baghdad with gold and gave him back his throne. I assume you are aware that Bin Laden declared our sanctions over Iraq as one of the reasons for 9/11? The hypocracy of protestors never allude me.

Why is that? I thought your argument was that we attacked the Middle East because they were a threat, not because of their oil?

My argument is over your head. You conitnue to bog down in details to give your protests comfort.

Oil is what made Germany strong. The lack of oil is what greatly contributed to Germany's defeat. Oil is what the Soviet Union was seeking in the Middle East immediately after WWII and they kicked off the Cold War. The threat of the Middle East was their exponentially growing love affair with radicalism and extremism. Until Afghanistan and Iraq, Middle Eastern governments were more than content ignoring the terrorist creating environment. Since 9/11, they have been pressured to deal with what they hadn't wanted to (present terrorist, radicals, lack of education, etc.) This is why it apppears worse today than it was when their trash went laregly unmolested.

Religious radicals and extremists cannot thrive where people have a right to choose the destination of their society. This is why they traveled from all over to slaughter Shia and to disrupt the growing Iraqi government of democracy. This is why Al-Queda would rather see a Middle East tribaly divided in violence and oppression than the alternative, which is what the vast majority of Muslims in the region prefer. Protestors in the West do not shed tears for them. They offer support towards those who prefer slaughter.

Exactly, everyone wants to get in on taking shots at the country that killed a half-million innocent Iraqis, and invades and occupies countries to control another country's property.

"Everyone?" Thousands (not everyone) from all over the reason didn't travel to Iraq just to try to kill an American. They traveled to help the Sunni organization, Al-Queda slaughter fellow Muslims in an other tribe. The vast majority of civilians killed in Iraq came from Muslim hands. But consider the rabble that traveled to the slaughter. Largely uneducated and without prospects for a future in this region. Their leap to radicalism and slaughter is easy.

But the hypocricy is obvious here. You whine about the sanctions, then whine we invade to end them. You cannot have it both ways. Pick a protest.

No wonder we have one of the highest crime rates of any country! Like father, like son!

I have no idea where your little remark was heading, but one of the factors that leads to our high crime rate is our gun laws. Another factor is our extreme celebration of liberty and creativity. Such things ignite passions in people.

But the point I made before you rambled out something about fathers and sons was that history's longest lasting peaces have only come after war. "Give peace a chance?" Well, first war must bring it.


That the our government will continue to kill innocent people in my name for oil.

How dare it provide you with virtually everything in your house. All governments have done what they have had to in order to provide a measure of security to the civilization they are tasked to care for. Oil is just the latest resource. People and governments have killed for thousands of years to control the earth's resources whether we talk of water, forest, furtile acres, or oil. Do you realize that in the Middle East some kill in the name of water? Hell some kill over the assumption of gods don't they?

But here is that protestor hypocracy again. "No War For Oil".....but "Sanctions For Oil?" Without the security of dealing with a civilization that is stable, we are stuck dealing with what we have. In a perfect world, our oil would come from only Texas or Canada. As it is, we get it from a religiously feuled civilization doomed to failure unless they acknowledge exactly what breeds their terror. We can deal with dictators....or we can be what we are supposed to be and push our business partners towards democracy and better treatment of their people. Nobody in the West tells any Muslim in any of those countries how to treat their people. They do this themselves.
 
Last edited:
When the war is over we will have defeated our enemy.

Yeah, that's what they said about Vietnam too!

If their governments want us to defend Saudi and Kuwaiti oil, then we will do just that.

Oh, I know we come from a long line of ass kissers. No arguing that!

Partners become enemies and become partners again. This is diplomacy.

Actually, that isn't even close to what diplomacy is. (See definition below)

"Main Entry: di·plo·ma·cy
Pronunciation: \də-ˈplō-mə-sē\
Function: noun
Date: 1796

1 : the art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations
2 : skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility "
Diplomacy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

The Tali-Ban got crushed right out of power and democracy seats the government in their place.

Just like in Iraq (some more of our handiwork) we find a corrupt government than can not stand against its own people with out US military occupation, at a cost to American taxpayers of over 1 trillion dollars and counting without a reduction in al Qaeda's capacity world wide.

Doesn't sound to me like a very smart plan.
There was no Civil War in Iraq.

It is the only reason or our continued occupation.
The vast majority of all security has been under Iraqi forces for quite some time with considerable success.

We still have 98,000 troops in Iraq making it free for big oil, more than we have fighting the "war on terrorism" in Afghanistan.

You know what bothers me so much about protestors" They always seem to protest the wrong damn things.

That tells us much about your perspective.

Without the "quagmire" (which never existed) it is still a Vietnam? Let it go.

We ignore history at our own peril.
Of course. Are you shocked that oil is important to the world?

Important enough to kill innocent civilians for? Shocked is not really the correct term for what I feel about it. Disgust would be a much better term.

I assume you are aware that Bin Laden declared our sanctions over Iraq as one of the reasons for 9/11?

Yes, I am aware. And I'm also aware that our sanctions are what fueled al Qaeda's worldwide recruitment success at that time.

Oil is what made Germany strong. The lack of oil is what greatly contributed to Germany's defeat. Oil is what the Soviet Union was seeking in the Middle East immediately after WWII and they kicked off the Cold War.

Does dependency on foreign oil makes a country stronger or weaker then?

People and governments have killed for thousands of years to control the earth's resources whether we talk of water, forest, furtile acres, or oil.

Yeah, who would expect humans to evolve? We just tie a yellow ribbon on it and call it patriotism.

But here is that protestor hypocracy again. "No War For Oil".....but "Sanctions For Oil?"

What protester's are calling for sanctions for oil? I call BS.
Without the security of dealing with a civilization that is stable, we are stuck dealing with what we have.

No we aren't stuck with what we have. We have made the conscious choice for 40 years now to kill others for their oll rather than switching our economy to sustainable energy.
 
Last edited:
Funny you say that.....Russia and France has sovereign oil fields in Iraq.


And this proves they were not interested in oil how?


Why were the soviets interested in Nicaragua? Cuba? Vietnam?


I was not aware they were in the Middle East, which is what we were discussing.



Agree on the energy disagree on the rest.

Do you disagree it is justified for a criminal refusing to provide for himself and when he gets hungry and kills someone for their food?



Actually Libya is estimated to have more oil than Iraq.


"Iraq dramatically increased the official size of its oil reserves yesterday after new data suggested that they could exceed Saudi Arabia’s and be the largest in the world.
The Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister told The Times that new exploration showed that his country has the world’s largest proven oil reserves, with as much as 350 billion barrels. The figure is triple the country’s present proven reserves and exceeds that of Saudi Arabia’s estimated 264 billion barrels of oil."
Iraq could have largest oil reserves in the world - Times Online

That's simply not true. It's a big factor, but not the only factor.

Show me the threat they presented to the US, other than oil?


You are ignoring a lot of the truth Cat.

I would say the same of you Mac.



Yes, really, It was Saudis that attacked us on 9/11, not Iraqis.


Yeah, I know...I'm not a fan of the Iraq war...there are plenty of issue I have with it. And I don't support cutting spending on valid, successful education programs. But there is no reason to be misleading about the facts or the history.

I believe you are basically a reasonable person Mac. Otherwise I would not have continued our discussion. The bottom line for me is that I can not find anyway to justify killing for control for oil.
 
And this proves they were not interested in oil how?

It doesn't prove they weren't interested in oil, but as far as we're concerned all that matters is that they were intersted.

I was not aware they were in the Middle East, which is what we were discussing.

Now your shifting goal posts. There are a multitude of reason why we get involved in the interior workings of planets all over the world. Not only because they contain resources we want. You've turned oil into this loathsome commodity and given it moral relevance. The only thing that is important about oil is that it's a commodity with direct and dramatic influence on all major economies. Threatening it, threatens the world economy....that's dangerous, and it very much is warfare.

Do you disagree it is justified for a criminal refusing to provide for himself and when he gets hungry and kills someone for their food?

No I do not. The rules governing international relations are not the same as the rules governing individuals. Simple truth.

"Iraq dramatically increased the official size of its oil reserves yesterday after new data suggested that they could exceed Saudi Arabia’s and be the largest in the world.
The Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister told The Times that new exploration showed that his country has the world’s largest proven oil reserves, with as much as 350 billion barrels. The figure is triple the country’s present proven reserves and exceeds that of Saudi Arabia’s estimated 264 billion barrels of oil."
Iraq could have largest oil reserves in the world - Times Online

Wow, I hadn't read that. But it's new data for everyone, no?

Show me the threat they presented to the US, other than oil?

For the most part, I can't. There's more to the entire situation than has been made public though, I can tell you that. The point is, Iraq was more developed and more capable than Afghanistan and look what they did to us, the strongest country in the world.

I would say the same of you Mac.

I would say you're wrong. I'm not ignoring or disputing that oil is, was, will be a significant factor in ME relations for a long time, and a driving factor in our interest in the region. However, you are ignoring the fact that there are other interests in the region that are far less...selfish.

Why are we involved with countries in the ME that have little or no oil reserves, or strategic value to us?

Yes, really, It was Saudis that attacked us on 9/11, not Iraqis.

It was the Taliban and Al'Qaeda...Afghanistan. The point is: a country far "weaker" than your "weakest nation" inflicted major harm to the US, or the "strongest nation".

I believe you are basically a reasonable person Mac. Otherwise I would not have continued our discussion. The bottom line for me is that I can not find anyway to justify killing for control for oil.

Thanks, I think of you the same. Now, let me ask you...what, on an international level, would you kill for?
 
Last edited:
Now your shifting goal posts. There are a multitude of reason why we get involved in the interior workings of planets all over the world. Not only because they contain resources we want. You've turned oil into this loathsome commodity and given it moral relevance. The only thing that is important about oil is that it's a commodity with direct and dramatic influence on all major economies. Threatening it, threatens the world economy....that's dangerous, and it very much is warfare.

Of course, but I am talking about the motivations for our modern middle east wars.



No I do not. The rules governing international relations are not the same as the rules governing individuals. Simple truth.

That is a personal value judgment. One I do not share. Since ours is a representative government, we are responsible for it. You've just found what you think is moral easy out to avoid guilt, IMO.


Wow, I hadn't read that. But it's new data for everyone, no?

Have you not read Cheney's report that predated our invasion of Iraq.


For the most part, I can't. There's more to the entire situation than has been made public though, I can tell you that. The point is, Iraq was more developed and more capable than Afghanistan and look what they did to us, the strongest country in the world.


We took their capital and dethroned their leader in 3 weeks. Did it take longer in Grenada? It was the Iraq's armed with little more than homemade weapons that valiantly fought against our occupation. No one expected that.



I would say you're wrong. I'm not ignoring or disputing that oil is, was, will be a significant factor in ME relations for a long time, and a driving factor in our interest in the region. However, you are ignoring the fact that there are other interests in the region that are far less...selfish.

Such as what?

Why are we involved with countries in the ME that have little or no oil reserves, or strategic value to us?

Which countries?



It was the Taliban and Al'Qaeda...Afghanistan. The point is: a country far "weaker" than your "weakest nation" inflicted major harm to the US, or the "strongest nation".

Which country inflicted major harm to the US???

Thanks, I think of you the same. Now, let me ask you...what, on an international level, would you kill for?

I would kill to defend against a physical attack on our nation. That also happens to be what our Constitution proscribes.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom