What does 9/11 mean to you?

[Boldek]

I'm in a mood to post... unexpectedly long dry arrogant poncey post ahoy...

It annoys me whenever terms degenerate and become misleading, which seems to happen especially when it circulates through the media too much.
I read a book "The Rise and Fall of Communism" by Archie Brown (sorry Gambit ), wherein he used communism with a little 'c' to describe it in theory, and Communism with a capital to describe how it actually existed. Communism with a little 'c', is the belief that goods and property should be held in common, the state should control industry so that none of it is private and use a planned economy, until society is classless and the state itself withers away as it becomes defunct. Communism as was carried out was entirely different, the things that were common to most regimes were that there was indeed a planned economy, focusing on heavy industry, forced collectivisation (which was supposed to happen voluntarily and gradually under communism), an authoritarian regime with no freedom of the press, religion (which was also supposed to whither away under communism), worship, speech etc. Instead of the state becoming smaller, represented by one party, it became bigger, creating a political class all its own with no regard for communism. Reagan once said that Communists read Marx, but capitalists understand Marx. To illustrate all of this, China is economically one of the most capitalistic nations in the world, socially it is Communist. Nepal in the 2008 elections was ruled by a Maoist government, democratically, in a coalition, until they were eventually ousted. It has been 60 years; I wish people would get over the Red Scare.
Fundamentalism is not the same as extremism. Strictly speaking the former is the focus of one's beliefs on the central tenets of one's religion, with little leeway on the interpretation of their holy scripts. Thus a Christian may focus his beliefs that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and is God, and descended to Earth to save humanity from sin. Extremism is the belief in things that are on the fringe of one's religion, and often therefore on the fringe of what is acceptable. These two things are often the opposite of one another, and should not be conflated.

correct. real communism is something people have been promising, only to bait and switch. and fundies and extremists are different. finally someone will say that.

Iraq was nothing to do with 9/11, only stupidity, but it wouldn't have happened without it. We went to war on the basis that the regime posed a threat to America's and the UK's national security with nuclear bombs, (I call them nukes, because I like to call a spade a spade). I believe some went to war out of fear and because Saddam's regime was no longer useful to our own ever selfish interests. It is not a better place than before, I think, the Financial Times, of all things, called it a religious dictatorship, more civilians were killed than Saddam was capable of killing himself, many more were displaced. For all we know, there may have been a successful reiteration of the Arab Spring had we not invaded. Iraq is not yet free, Iraq and Libya prove that we cannot give people freedom, as much as we would like to, freedom must be taken and bought with blood, as Thomas Jefferson said. There has been no successful revolution that was without casualties, because power is almost never willingly surrendered, especially in the case of totalitarians.

If this is a war of ideas, then the proper response to 9/11 would have been to prove their idea false, by not invading another country, which was portrayed as imperialist and oppressive, by treating it as a homicide, and not a declaration of war, by addressing genuine grievances, such as the propping up of regimes in Israel, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Egypt, ignoring their abuse of their people. In my opinion, propping up or toppling governments on an ideological basis is effectively a breach of sovereignty, or at least self-determination, and should be abhorrent to any place that claims to be democratic. Resistance to the groups themselves should have been carried out covertly. Telling these people when you plan to invade is unbelievably stupid, as is telling them when you will leave. Perhaps this would have resulted in more of 'us' dying. I don't care. It could not have resulted in the death tolls Iraq and Afghanistan.

well, not so much. Iraq didn't have all to do with it, but it certainly was going to play it's part. tyrants are capable of killing amazing amounts of people, (I think Russia proved that in the 60's) any people that were displaced or killed not by Saddam's regime were killed by suicide bombings and like in the attempt to start a riot, not shot in the crossfire between marines and terrorists. so yes, the war caused the terrorists to act up, but then, no one enjoys war. but I wouldn't say it was based on stupidity. Saddam's regime was never useful, (if you remember, he was a bit of a pain in the butt) and if anything, it wasn't that he failed to keep the line, but that he crossed the line.
this is a war of ideas, but it's still a war. even Hitlers stormtroopers thought they were heroes as they carried out hideous villainies for the Fuhrer. and the Japanese, even as they beheaded the POWs by shoving their bayonet out the window of a truck passing a line of marching prisoners, or whipped a group of teenage girls to death in Korea with barbed wire thought that they were in the right, obeying the great emperor. you can go ahead and try to point out the weak spots in the suicide bomber's beliefs as he rushes through the airport, but I will try and stop him with a gun. and to treat it as homicide? it sure was, people were murdered unjustly, just like what started the war of 1812, we could've blamed it on cannon malfunction, but people still got killed. totalitarian tyranny doesn't make a good system, and because Bush killed their leader, he was responsible to put training wheels on the bike. he had to fix what he started. I think that isn't so useless. and he told Saddam that he was going to enter with guns and men, and what did he do? not just stand back and let him inspect as a innocent person with nothing to fear, but met our infantry with bullets. innocent until proven guilty may seem pretty dumb when something screams obvious, but how would you feel if he just sent in marines and shot the guy with no warning? people would be more furious then ever. I don't agree with Obama at all for announcing when he's giving up, but then he doesn't seem to know much about war.

The Taliban (which has mutated beyond an anti-Western group), is now involved with talks to be included in the Afghan government, as they should be, because if they are not included the wars will continue there, now as a civil war, and it is not our place to decide how a country should be run, that is for the people themselves to decide — the essence of democracy.

It seems to me that some people perceive that the Middle East's frustration with affairs vented itself first as anti-Western terrorism, then democratically. We thought they were not capable of a constitution similar to our ideals; this was wrong and always had been — observe Egypt. Terrorists were a tiny group of people until Iraq and Afghanistan were invaded, every death of an enemy in a religious cause is a martyrdom; we were not only the enemy but godless; the war was to some demonstrably expansionist; support increased and spread worldwide, killing a terrorist seems to like decapitating the Hydra. By these invasions our ideas were losing in the region, since fewer people then believed in them. But despite this, the Arab Spring still occurred, which I suspect marks the subsidence of this whole sorry thing.

ah, it seems that there will be always be strife in the middle east... yes, I agree that they are capable of democracy, I believe that was what Bush tried to explain, if you don't calm them down and teach them something better, they will continue causing war. but I would not observe Egypt as a shining example, it seems to me that the place may be better, but it sure has problems too. and yeah, killing a terrorist is like killing a wc in 'pebbles in the flood' they will keep coming, and coming, and come as long as they have a leader, or an ideology. but before we go around teach every single one of 'em, they keep trying to shoot us. there is many cases where suicide bombers had second thoughts and surrendered.

Spoiler:

families would actually sell their children to terrorists to use as walking bombs for a large amount of cash. some suicide bombings were little kids who were given a magic vest and told to walk up to the soldiers and push the button.

many terrorists aren't mindless scum, but when you see one in your kitchen, you try to at least disarm him, not talk it out. and if you find the secret head quarters, you send in the marines, not the UN peace keepers, because their rule is " kill on sight" one of the problems about stopping them. I think, that the only way to stop them from clutching their beliefs that will kill them in a fit of rage, rather teach them something better. we have to destroy those unwilling to turn, and heal those willing to give up their anger. it will really be sticky process, about the equivalent of stopping stealing worldwide. I sometimes wonder myself if we ever will see the end of it.

[Finrod]

So where are you getting these "actual facts" from?

From reliable sources, for instance; My aunt was a nurse in Afghanistan for 19 years. She was there when the Taliban took over. She has stories about dodging bullets to go across the street and help victims. She was evacuated by the US right before we went into Afghanistan, because the Taliban started killing Americans there because of the upcoming invasion. She went back there right after the invasion and only came back to the US this last year.
She knew the Afghan people a lot better than you or me. She actually is liberal (yes, some of my relatives are) and although she does sometimes say that the US is wrong, she did say that the Afghanis loved the Americans. Especially the Soldiers. If you still don't get why the people of an oppressed nation love the American's freeing them, then you should start reading a lot of books. Books by people who lived under Communist rule, or dictatorships, or Christian's in Muslim nations. Being oppressed and persecuted actually isn't fun. It really isn't.

Also, women still get murdered over religion or customs in democracies.

True, there is always murderers everywhere, in Democracies or Dictatorships, but like Boldek said, If you kill a women in a democratic nation, you get punished. Not praised. In Muslim nations, if your daughter converts to Christianity or Hinduism or Buddhism, you name it, it is not just allowed, but expected and demanded that you kill her. (if she still won't repent after your repeated beatings)
As a matter of fact, a lot of Muslim teenage girls in America get killed by their Fathers and Brothers for converting. It usually doesn't happen too much, and when it does, it makes news. And the murderers are punished. (imprisoned for life and stuff like that).
In Muslim nations the murderers don't get punished, because according to their religion, they did the right thing. My Aunt mentioned above also told us of the Taliban pouring gasoline on women and setting them on fire, because they were in public without a male relative to escort them. (Yes, my previous post was not made up)
My family gets the magazine 'Voice of the Martyrs' and it has lots of stories of Muslims pouring acid on women and machete-ing little girls and things like that, and the government sides with the killers. That is the kind of culture that is in those countries we went into.

So you better believe it that the citizens in Iraqi and Afghanistan would rather have the Americans and Democracy then Tyrants and Dictatorships.

The German government made massive debts with western banks to finance both of the World Wars and they owed heaps of money in unpaid reparations for World War I. By conquering them, you assure that they are going to pay. Plus you can still make money off the war. By destroying the emergent superpower, you get rid of unwanted competition. So there, some good reasons to conquer Germany for you.

Another good reason was that they were trying to conquer and enslave the world, including America. WWII was self-defense too. WWII is the closest you can get to the Star Wars' Good vs. Evil. (In fact it was originally based on WWII, like the Battle for Britain)

Boldek wrote:Hussein who was feverishly preparing his WMDs

Almost everyone knows there were no WMD.

It is popular belief that they didn't have nukes, but all the facts contradict that belief. The story goes: UN: "Do you have nukes?" Saddam: "No, not at all." UN: "OK, then let us check you for nukes." Saddam: "WE DON'T HAVE NUKES!, but you can't check us yet." 6 months later: Saddam: "OK, you can check us now." UN: "My goodness, we didn't find any nukes! Bush must have been lying!". Maybe you were never a kid, or you never had any, but that GUILTY in large letters written all over his face.
The Israelis flew surveillance (or maybe it was satellites) over the border of Iraq and Syria and saw lots of tire tracks in the sand going back and forth over the border. Not long after that, Syria (who wasn't the most developed country in the world) suddenly was quite close to developing a Nuke. A few years ago the Israelis bombed a building in middle of the desert in Syria. It was supposedly a fertilizer factory (in middle of the desert far from civilization? come on). And Syria DID NOT protest! Huh? how does that make sense? It was the North Koreans and the Iranians who protested about Israel bombing the plant (somehow they had had some of their people in the fertilizer plant. ???). After that Syria has just about given up on making a Nuke.
It was the exact same thing with Iran. Iran was not as technologically advanced as the Iraqis, I'm not sure if they were even trying to make nukes at that point. And then suddenly (after Iraq had proved to the UN that there wasn't any nukes) Iran became VERY busy building nukes, and they had somehow jumpstarted their Nuclear program. As you probably all know Ahmadinejad is trying very hard to finish his nukes (he's only a couple of years away) and he makes known his intention to everybody that he wants to nuke Israel.

So no, Iraq didn't have nukes when the UN checked, but they did have them before that. It is popular to say that Bush was a horrible liar, but he was right about that.

This is by no means comprehensive.
Our mercenaries:
Blackwater
DynCorp
Triple Canopy
Erinys
ArmorGroup

What exactly do you mean by saying "Our Mercenaries"? Do we pay them to fight our battles? Do we pay them to invade countries? The obvious answer is no. We have the Marine Corps, we don't need mercenaries to fight our battles. People use Blackwater for personal protection. I haven't heard a single report about the US government using them to fight our wars. And in case you didn't know, all those middle eastern guys have mercenaries.

Profited from high gas prices:
Halliburton
Exxon Mobil
BP
Shell

Seeing as they're the main oil companies it makes sense that they profited instead of Billy on the farm. Although they don't actually make that much money off gas prices, if the Saudis raise the price per barrel you have to raise your gas price. I don't like high gas prices any more than any of you, but people do put more blame on the oil companies than they should. The oil companies only make a very small amount per gallon, as in a few cents. The dudes with the dough are the Sheiks in the Persian Gulf. My friend was in Dubai last spring, he said that only around 20% of the population are actual Arab people, most of the rest are Indians, and he said every single one of them are Millionaires. Exaggerated or not, the point is the $ is in those oil-producing countries, the oil companies are poor in comparison.

Why would he blow up anything? You think he would do it "just because"? His life was having his little empire. If he used a nuke, Iraq would be immediately invaded and he would be imprisoned if not killed.

Why did Hitler invade Poland? Why did the Soviets invade Europe? Why did the Terrorists destroy the Twin Towers? Why is Ahmadinejad trying to do exactly what you are questioning of Saddam? For one thing the Middle Eastern countries have been mostly poor 3rd world backwater nations, and they want Power. And they think having a Nuke is instant Power and Recognition. And it gives them the power to destroy their enemies, like Israel. Before WWII people thought that Hitler wouldn't cause a new war, they had better military's and they could squash Hitler if they wanted. And it was true at first. They were more powerful than the Germans, even when they invaded France they were (on paper) inferior to the French and British armies.

Finrod: I thought Boldek's posts were ridiculous, but yours really stole the cake..

Thanks!
If Boldek is your idea of ridiculous I would gladly have the cake.

[doofus-01]

I said I was out, but I'm weak...

What exactly do you mean by saying "Our Mercenaries"? Do we pay them to fight our battles?

Yes. Not that we couldn't fight our own battles, if we truly felt they were worth fighting. But a mercenary, shadow force doesn't need to have the public involved. There was a (admittedly doomed & symbolic) call by NY Rep. Rangel to reinstate the draft, in large part to force the public back into the equation. A volunteer force is more professional than unwilling conscripts, but if you keep it all in the shadows, and there is more money for contractors (because of a fetish for "privatizing"?), don't be surprised if there are mercenaries.

I have this weird syndrome known as chronic hero syndrome

I have a weird rash on my feet.

If you accept the premise that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars happened because of 9/11 and there would be no costly wars without it, then 9/11 has contributed at least 1.25 trillion or about 8.5 percent of the total debt (the wars are projected to cost much more in the end). Then there is a price tag for the additional -so called- homeland security of nearly half a trillion (but you still pay 2.5$ per flight to fund the TSA). Then there's increased defense spending not counted as being part of the war price tag and that's not the end of the list.

I don't accept that premise. Once Gore lost the 2000 election, fate favored military action in Iraq, and more money for defense contractors. Did 9/11 give it the necessary push? How can we know, but it isn't responsible for today's problems (for most of us). The military spending certainly doesn't help the debt and deficit spending, but how does defense compare to health-care spending and recession- & tax-cut-driven loss of revenue?

[mystic x the unknown]

Even though I disagree with some of it, I think Deusite's post would have deserved to remain the last post for a while. But that's off the table so I might as well step in..

to Boldek and Fendrin:
I appreciate your efforts, but most of your views are way off the mark. I would have things to say in response to most of your posts, but.. it takes quite some time. I'd like to respond a bit more later, but for now I'd just like to pick this most delicious fruit:

something had to be done, and Bush wasn't going to say "everyone, I am the president, and you are supposed to do what I say, so close your eyes and lock the doors, and maybe the terrorists will just give up." no, instead he decided to thwart their next assault

Maybe he could have thwarted the next assault just by doing things a little differently? for example:

by not constantly screwing with people in the middle east and subsequently pissing them off?

by not hiding and discarding intelligence about potential terrorist operations against US?

by not blocking FBI agents monitoring terrorism suspects from doing their work?

by not trying to block investigations of supposed terrorist attacks so that the US could better plan how to protect itself from such attacks? (also not settling for an investigation that produced incredibly insufficient results .. and not ignoring calls for an adequate investigation)

I'm sure he would have been willing to try that, being as concerned about terrorism as he is/used to be.
His detractors say he's just faking it, but all of us who have read 'My Pet Goat' know that there's simply nothing that could make you interrupt your first read-through.

the dude could have just handed out guns to police force that could sit in air planes stopping terrorists, and ignore the call of justice. but instead he ruined his reputation, he spent years working n a third world country while people yammered in his ear, and he went out of his way to fix things up.

So you admit that the wars that served as a great tool in recruiting new terrorists were completely unnecessary?

How do you define justice? Killing people who had nothing to do with the what you are taking your revenge for? Or was that not your revenge but one in the name of the people who died? They would have certainly wanted to have some more death and suffering inflicted on their behalf.
And no, Bush wasn't working as hard as you imagine. His job was to talk in public, talk with politicians, pose for cameras and do whatever he's told to.

[zookeeper]

Maybe it's not politically correct or popular to look at the actual facts, such as the Iraqi people welcomed the American's as liberators, or that the Iraqi people are MUCH better off then they were before, and if you actually ask a Iraqi person, 99 times out of 100 they will tell you they like the Americans. (the other 1% are terrorists or Americans in disguise ) America set up a democracy in Iraq. Maybe you don't know what a Democracy is, so long story short, it's better. Period. (Such as...Women can walk around in the street without gasoline being dumped on them and set on fire for not having a male relative accompany them, they can even vote, etc...)

So where are you getting these "actual facts" from?

From reliable sources, for instance; My aunt was a nurse in Afghanistan for 19 years. She was there when the Taliban took over. She has stories about dodging bullets to go across the street and help victims. She was evacuated by the US right before we went into Afghanistan, because the Taliban started killing Americans there because of the upcoming invasion. She went back there right after the invasion and only came back to the US this last year.
She knew the Afghan people a lot better than you or me. She actually is liberal (yes, some of my relatives are) and although she does sometimes say that the US is wrong, she did say that the Afghanis loved the Americans.

[Gambit]

What exactly do you mean by saying "Our Mercenaries"?

It's very simple. We pay them to go abroad and to shoot people.

True, there is always murderers everywhere, in Democracies or Dictatorships, but like Boldek said, If you kill a women in a democratic nation, you get punished. Not praised. In Muslim nations, if your daughter converts to Christianity or Hinduism or Buddhism, you name it, it is not just allowed, but expected and demanded that you kill her. (if she still won't repent after your repeated beatings)

Ugh. More egregious misuse of language.

This has nothing to do with being a democracy versus dictatorship. What you're talking about is a theocracy with an extremely right-wing interpretation of their holy text. Being a democracy and a Muslim theocracy aren't even mutually exclusive as you make them out to be.

Would it really be that much more palatable to you if the extreme right-wingers in Genericmiddleeastistan got together and voted on whether or not to stone the woman to death based on their interpretation of an ancient book? Hey, it'd be a democracy like you said! It must be good, right?

No. The problem is that they have laws like that at all.

America's democratic process != its bill of rights != separation of church and state. They're three separate awesome things. And the first one is the least important in the situation you describe.

but I'm weak...

I know right? Me too apparently. I just can't stand to see people abusing language like this. It's misinformation via simplification. You get the rednecks riled up about HECK YEAH! DEMOCRACY! WOOOOOO! GET THOSE FILTHY COMMY NAZI MAOIST JERKS!

And they take action based on that without really understanding the problem.

And now we have more terrorists than before. But hey, Iraq has a democracy now! Now they can vote on what dogma to run their lives by! Yay! Mission accomplished! And we thwarted Gog and Magog or something. Awesome.

[Finrod]

It's very simple. We pay them to go abroad and to shoot people.

??? WE? Are you Libyan? Somalian? Al-Qaeda? WHO pays them to go abroad and shoot people? WHO are they shooting? Is this "information" you have coming from People Magazine or something stupider? Let me repeat myself. The US government does NOT, I repeat NOT pay mercenaries to fight their battles. Have you ever heard of the Marine Corps? the Navy Seals? the Green Berets? Are those who you're calling mercenaries? Because they are the ones we pay to fight. Why in the Blazes would we hire mercenaries when we have the Marines? Have you given up on logic and reasoning? Where is your facts? Show one instance that the US hired mercenaries to fight our battles.

This has nothing to do with being a democracy versus dictatorship. What you're talking about is a theocracy with an extremely right-wing interpretation of their holy text. Being a democracy and a Muslim theocracy aren't even mutually exclusive as you make them out to be.

Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I did indeed use a Muslim Sharia Law vs Democracy as an example. But the kind of Dictatorship we are talking about in Dictatorship in Muslim countries where that kind of thing is going on. So it did have something to do with the example.

What you're talking about is a theocracy with an extremely right-wing interpretation of their holy text.

It's actually not all that extremely right-wing. Have you ever read the Koran? I've read some of it. You should read it too. It doesn't take an extremist Muslim to kill infidels, it takes a religious one. The guys running around with AK-47s are the dudes who are taking the Koran seriously.

I know right? Me too apparently. I just can't stand to see people abusing language like this. It's misinformation via simplification. You get the rednecks riled up about HECK YEAH! DEMOCRACY! WOOOOOO! GET THOSE FILTHY COMMY NAZI MAOIST JERKS!

I know, right? Are you saying you aren't a proponent of Democracy? That those "FILTHY COMMY NAZI MAOIST JERKS!" should just be left alone to torture people as they like?
And is there a problem with being a "redneck"? The term implies that you work outside a lot. That's not bad, it means you're hardworking.

I'm afraid I'll have to cut this short, I have to go to classes, I have a exam today.

[Boldek]

This has nothing to do with being a democracy versus dictatorship. What you're talking about is a theocracy with an extremely right-wing interpretation of their holy text. Being a democracy and a Muslim theocracy aren't even mutually exclusive as you make them out to be.

Would it really be that much more palatable to you if the extreme right-wingers in Genericmiddleeastistan got together and voted on whether or not to stone the woman to death based on their interpretation of an ancient book? Hey, it'd be a democracy like you said! It must be good, right?

nope, it has a lot. in democratic countries, they show up at meetings they converse with other countries, they allow many customs started in the US to keep things calm, (by this I mean western law standards, for the most part, and voting) and having a stable government and law system help prevent things that aid terrorists: sharia law helps back up their claims, lack of order and random monarchs and tyrants help keep the place nice and confusing as they like it, and without westerners watching the country, they can do a lot of their recruiting and weapon buying. having normal, sane, nice people in a seat where the people have a voice, with a police force that understands law, and with closer ties with America, corruption, terrorism, and weapons floating around are easier to stop.

Finrod wrote:What exactly do you mean by saying "Our Mercenaries"?


It's very simple. We pay them to go abroad and to shoot people.

okay, we "pay them to go abroad and shoot people" who are "we" talking about? so someone say's that you can't tell because it's dark to the public. well in that case, you could say that the CIA are actually little green men, but it's dark to the public. in which case, they aren't important enough for the discussion. there isn't thousands of black water guards rushing around Afghanistan . this isn't a sniper video game, we fight battles and wars with the losers, and sure maybe someone, might possibly have been payed by the government to kill someone, but I don't see why they would waste money when our own secret forces are just as good. and usually, the seals do it better.

True, there is always murderers everywhere, in Democracies or Dictatorships, but like Boldek said, If you kill a women in a democratic nation, you get punished. Not praised. In Muslim nations, if your daughter converts to Christianity or Hinduism or Buddhism, you name it, it is not just allowed, but expected and demanded that you kill her. (if she still won't repent after your repeated beatings)


Ugh. More egregious misuse of language.

This has nothing to do with being a democracy versus dictatorship. What you're talking about is a theocracy with an extremely right-wing interpretation of their holy text. Being a democracy and a Muslim theocracy aren't even mutually exclusive as you make them out to be.

Would it really be that much more palatable to you if the extreme right-wingers in Genericmiddleeastistan got together and voted on whether or not to stone the woman to death based on their interpretation of an ancient book? Hey, it'd be a democracy like you said! It must be good, right?

knock off on the grammar picking. A: sharia law and democracies are non compatible, that's one reason the terrorists hate us. (I suggest you read the Koran before you waste our time, this is getting tenuous) while muslims are happy to work as a democracy, their own holy texts can still create terrorists, so that's why we try and institute our own rules.
and yes, the Iraq war, 9/11, and all that fun stuff had a lot to do with dictatorship versus democracy. just think about it for a minute before reposting. the terrorists are here to smash America, capitalism, democracy, and the infidels. Saddam's reign was like their haven, and we had to stop both him and them. they were pretty much partners in crime, Osama and Hussein.

No. The problem is that they have laws like that at all.

yes! and that's why we institute our laws, because then terrorists can't talk fast to people and get them to kill themselves.

America's democratic process != its bill of rights != separation of church and state. They're three separate awesome things. And the first one is the least important in the situation you describe.

all three are just the same in importance, if you can defend your argument, I would like you to do so.

I know right? Me too apparently. I just can't stand to see people abusing language like this. It's misinformation via simplification. You get the rednecks riled up about HECK YEAH! DEMOCRACY! WOOOOOO! GET THOSE FILTHY COMMY NAZI MAOIST JERKS!

And they take action based on that without really understanding the problem.

you keep talking about 'abusing the language' how scary. I'm thrilled. can you please explain that out loud to every one so that this doesn't look like me bashing you? it's really fun to have an argument. just please argue a little more.

they take action without understanding the problem. wow, wasn't that what this entire post upon post I have been writing is about?! or are you even reading them, or just here to bash? there is two things necessary to arguing: the first, a good attack, and the second, a good defense. lets start talking sense.

And now we have more terrorists than before. But hey, Iraq has a democracy now! Now they can vote on what dogma to run their lives by! Yay! Mission accomplished! And we thwarted Gog and Magog or something. Awesome.

we didn't thwart them, but if this is about ideas, we have to win step by step. you seem to be disappointed in the war, but I think if you look back n this thread you will come to understand my point of view. and please do some explaining and arguing. it's no fun talking with people who rant and don't defend their rants.

mysticxunkown: as I said earlier, please verify your facts with a reliable source, he did stop a second terrorists attack that was going to follow up, I hardly call one nation constantly annoying the middle east. if a middle eastern country harbors terrorists, prepares dangerous weapons, they should be stopped. annoying them? I bet they are. once again chronic hero syndrome is ruining their clever plans.
if you are going to listen to unreliable sources that once again, only claim things, then hush. and no it wasn't unnecessary, it sure made them mad to see Bush stop Hussein, but the war in Afghanistan and Iraq actually decreased the terrorist bases and count. not increased. and even if he wasn't shooting people, he worked as president should. frankly, listening to politicians, peace nicks, angry citizens, slandering media, is a lot. for years.

[Gambit]

Finrod, that you don't know about the United State's dependency on PMCs nicely frames the futility of this thread. It's not even that we have a disagreement. It's just a disparity in the amount of knowledge.

"Oh we've got a bad@#$ military. Surely we don't need mercenaries." If you had just gone and searched for some facts - even with the intent to prove me wrong - instead of going on feelings, you'd have found this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xe_Service ... nvolvement

Blackwater alone has gotten about $350,000,000 from us.
Now to be fair, we did make them pay back $42,000,000 in fines for selling black market weapons while they were over there.

You can make a valid point that, since I was the one making the statement, it's not your job to look up facts to prove me wrong. I guess I just thought that reality was a known. My bad.
I mean there was a huge todo about all the crimes they've committed and everything... I don't understand how there are people that still don't know about this... I mean the debate is still open on if they're a good or bad thing. But you just tried to argue with me about whether or not we hired them at all. It's mind boggling. That we hired them... there is no debate there. It's a fact.

And that makes me question the entire foundation of this discussion. If a person is not speaking from a point grounded in reality, there's no point in even trying to talk to them. What other facts and matters of public record are not known by the people I'm arguing with? What other arguments on the other side are based on ignorance, and easily destroyed with just a ray of sunshine. To call it frustrating is an understatement.

Are you saying you aren't a proponent of Democracy? That those "FILTHY COMMY NAZI MAOIST JERKS!" should just be left alone to torture people as they like?

Yes. Clearly anyone who suggests that letting a problem be is better than making it worse must be against democracy. And anyone who argues against the dangers of hyperbolic simplification in our political atmosphere is too.

all three are just the same in importance, if you can defend your argument, I would like you to do so.

I already did defend it. The defense lies in this question:

Would it really be that much more palatable to you if the extreme right-wingers in Genericmiddleeastistan got together and voted on whether or not to stone the woman to death based on their interpretation of an ancient book? Hey, it'd be a democracy like you said! It must be good, right?

Making them recognize basic human rights, and separating their religion from their government are far more important than giving them a democracy. Yes democracy is great, and it'd be great if they had it, but it's not what solves the problems you're pointing out.

A: sharia law and democracies are non compatible, that's one reason the terrorists hate us.

Did you just compare the governments of most middle eastern countries to terrorists?




Something we (Findor, Boldek, myself) agree on is that our stated goals in Iraq and Afghanistan were to promote democracy and fight terrorism.

Now, my overall position is that A] our actions have created more terrorism and B] democracy in Iraq is less important than getting Iraq to recognize basic human rights and C] "getting them to recognize basic human rights" would have been a diplomatic thing rather than wars. Which would not have created the more terrorism from point A.

[tekelili]

People share a common behavior with most of live beings, it is called self preservation instinct. I dont think is easy for anybody convince a guy to do an act that implies his own dead. Usually a person has to feel an intense fear or desperation to become agree in sacrifice himself. Fanatism and religion can help, but I dont think is enougth just with that.
I dont want start a different discussion so I wont describe my point of view about Israel behavior. But is very surprising to me how often USA people say that cause of terrorism is that they hate democracy, capitalism, freedom and stuff like that, and inconditional and huge support to Israel behavior is just ignored, plus fact that USA has supported tirany among middle east for lot of years as long their dictactors were friendly and send oil. After push Irak to a nosense war vs Iran and sell weapons to both sides to just get profit from lot of deaths, sure... only cause to hate USA beyond selfdeath it is democracy

[Great_Mage_Atari]

Ah, if I may say this isn't a thread about how 9/11 makes you feel anymore... this is now just basically a political thread where people are arguing facts over opiniotive reality... should this be split so peoplr can voice how 9/11 makes them feel rather than arguing about wars?

[Gambit]

Is that desired? I can if it is, but threads here in off topic just tend to evolve and change out of our attention defic- OMG! SQUIRREL!

Like once we somehow turned a discussion on morality regarding nuclear weapons into a debate about hanging toilet paper rolls over or under.
And not just an ironic "This debate is as worthless as the toilet paper one." No. We actually discussed over versus under. That graph is all the same thread.

[Great_Mage_Atari]

Yet your being a lead contributer
I'm just stating something. No need to get defensive

[artisticdude]

Off-Topic:

Like once we somehow turned a discussion on morality regarding nuclear weapons into a debate about hanging toilet paper rolls over or under.
And not just an ironic "This debate is as worthless as the toilet paper one." No. We actually discussed over versus under. That graph is all the same thread.

ROFL. That graph just wins. And that's just the way it goes, too...

[Gambit]

Yet your being a lead contributer

Yes. I am definitely guilty of this.