the UN

[Pangloss]

So numbers are more important than intentions. I see.

 

I'm no defender of Iraq, and you're changing the subject. The comment you made that I was responding to was that we are ourselves to blame for 9/11. That's a crock and I called you on it, and you haven't responded to that point. You're just spewing intellectually deficient "we can't beat the terrorists so let's beat the Americans" nonsense, and you know it.

 

You also need to work on a few of your facts:

- Iraq was, in fact, harboring terrorists (I agree it was not threatening the US)

- You did, in fact, quote MLK

 

Anti-Americanism is easy, but it's an intellectual void. Sure, pick on the country that's big enough to make mistakes as collosal as Iraq, then sit back and relax because (a) your country isn't big enough to ever make those kinds of blunders, and (b) if you criticize loud enough maybe the terrorists will think you're on their side and leave you alone.

[Dr. Dalek]

Bush's orders have led to the deaths of 100 people for every death resulting from Al Qaeda action.

 

Let me pop you a quick question though, how many of those deaths were terrorists. (not just Al Qaeda)

[PhDP]

So numbers are more important than intentions. I see.

 

Having "good intentions" can't be a substitute for competence. Bush had responsibilities; he failed and should be held accountable. Bush can’t get away with “good intentions”, it’s not serious ! How would a private enterprise react if an employee, because of his actions, had caused half a millions deaths ?

 

Anti-Americanism is easy, but it's an intellectual void. Sure, pick on the country that's big enough to make mistakes as collosal as Iraq, then sit back and relax because (a) your country isn't big enough to ever make those kinds of blunders, and (b) if you criticize loud enough maybe the terrorists will think you're on their side and leave you alone.

 

If being critical of the foreign policies of the United-States makes someone an "Anti-American", then I guess most Americans are becoming Anti-Americans. I can't say for SkepticLance, but I have a very deep respect for the US, and I wish to complete my studies there… but I have no respect for Bush, he might be a great guy, a good father, I don't care, as a president he's a disaster. His reelection is a shame and is a slap in the face of the world. This guy had the sympathy and support of most of the world after 9/11, and now terrorists are stronger, Iran and Syria are stronger, far more people are dying in Iraq now than in 2000 under the "evil" regime of Saddam, Afghans are starting to think the Talibans weren't so bad after all, Pakistan is destabilized by the war in Afghanistan and most of the people of South Korea think the North Korean crisis was caused by the US, not by Kim Jong-il (and no, it’s not because they like him). This isn't a little blunder, it's gross incompetence.

 

Let me pop you a quick question though, how many of those deaths were terrorists. (not just Al Qaeda)

 

Around 655 000 deaths, "excess mortality" caused by the US invasion of Iraq (393000-943000, 19 times out of 20), that makes a lot of terrorists... The Lancet gives a free access to the article.

[SkepticLance]

Pangloss said :

 

The comment you made that I was responding to was that we are ourselves to blame for 9/11. That's a crock and I called you on it,

 

Please READ my postings before you attack comments that I actually did not make. What I actually said was that it is understandable why Muslims hate the US. I did NOT say you are to blame for 9/11. As I went to some pains to point out, that was the result of action by some thoroughly evil gangsters.

 

I am not anti-American. I have visited your country twice and enjoyed the people and their wonderful hospitality. I want to point out, though, the mistakes your administration has made in the past, and the terrible consequences of such action. Bush junior is the epitome of the unthinking OR uncaring OR just plain stupid leader, who causes enormous harm. America, by virtue of the immense power it wields, must be equally immensely responsible in its actions. And it is not.

 

Dr. Dalek said :

 

Let me pop you a quick question though, how many of those deaths were terrorists. (not just Al Qaeda)

 

Actually, very few. The report of 650,000 deaths in Iraq as a consequence of the invasion was referring mostly to deaths of Iraqis killed by other Iraqis as a result of sectarian hatred. This hatred has always been there, but held in check by the previous government. Saddm Hussein is an evil bastard, but he was an effective leader. When his government fell, it released pent up rage. Of course, there was a terrible snowball effect. Sunni Muslims who tried to attack the new US led government, killed a lot of Shiites. The Shiites, however, were now a majority in the new police and military. They retaliated. A terrible escalation of hatred and death resulted.

[SkepticLance]

To Pangloss.

 

Below is my entire earlier posting. Please point out where I quote Martin Luther King. When you discover I did not, please apologise.

 

There is nothing simple, or black and white about current middle East conflicts. Al. Qaeda, in all its evil, came into being in response to historical ills.

 

Much dates back 1000 years, to the crusades. In the Muslim Middle East, the word, Crusader, is a dirty - even foul - word. To call America in Iraq a bunch of crusaders is to call them evil, in the worst possible way.

 

A more recent problem is that festering sore known as the Israel/Palestine problem. That was based on a totally evil act by America and Britain. For over 1000 years, Palestine was home to a people who were Muslim. After the holocaust, the west decided to solve the 'Jewish problem' by giving them a home. However, the homeland was occupied. No problem! The Palestinians were unceremoniously turned into refugees.

 

Naturally the Palestinian's descendents, and other Muslims did not take kindly to this, and they fought back and still fight back. I do not agree that killing innocents is a valid form of freedom fighting, but I definitely understand why they are fighting.

 

Until America addresses this situation, there will be enormous hatred of the USA throughout the Muslim world, and that will translate into terrorist actions against America. There is only one way to ameliorate the problem. America must put intense pressure on Israel to return the conquered territories to Palestine, and establish a truly independent sovereign nation. America must then pour aid into this new nation to get it onto its feet. Such an act will serve to defuse the hatred Muslims feel. Of course, there is no easy fix, and even this will not cause Al Qaeda to disappear, or to stop Iran developing the bomb. However, it is a really good start.

 

One thing that the USA should have learned by now is that aggression begets aggression. 650,000 Iraqis are now dead as a direct result of the Iraq war. Three times the number that Saddam killed, and in a much shorter time period. Al Qaeda will strike again. More Americans will die.

 

Self defense is justified. Wars of invasion are not. And they bring retribution, even to superpowers.

__________________

[Pangloss]

Having "good intentions" can't be a substitute for competence. Bush had responsibilities; he failed and should be held accountable. Bush can’t get away with “good intentions”, it’s not serious ! How would a private enterprise react if an employee, because of his actions, had caused half a millions deaths ?

 

I agree. The implication raised by SkepticLance, however, is that he's wholy and entirely culpable for the deaths of every Iraqi who has died as a result of the invasion. I disagree with that conclusion.

 

There is a place in-between those two views, and it is a logical and reasonable place.

 

 

If being critical of the foreign policies of the United-States makes someone an "Anti-American", then I guess most Americans are becoming Anti-Americans.

 

You've a right to your opinion, and I respect that, but I simply don't see the value of flipping about from one extreme to another every four years, which is what has been happening of late.

[Pangloss]

I don't see the point of arguing about Dr. King. If you say it wasn't your intention to quote him, I believe you. (shrug) His words are so ubiquitous that they've more or less become part of the vernacular anyway. It still pains me to see someone with your POV quoting him, so my original comment stands.

 

I did notice that you avoided responding to the more important error you made, regarding Iraq harboring terrorists.

 

Please READ my postings before you attack comments that I actually did not make. What I actually said was that it is understandable why Muslims hate the US. I did NOT say you are to blame for 9/11. As I went to some pains to point out, that was the result of action by some thoroughly evil gangsters.

 

I did respond to comments that you actually made. Criticism is easy, especially when it's criticism of other people. But you certainly have a right to your opinion. Good luck making two wrongs a right, I hope it works for you.

 

I choose a different path. One that doesn't imply an eye for an eye. One that doesn't require holding some individuals accountable for the evil actions of other individuals. One that recognizes reality and tries to deal with it, rather than fostering blame hither and yon, per the dictates of convenience and political correctness.

[SkepticLance]

Pangloss said :

 

The implication raised by SkepticLance, however, is that he's wholy and entirely culpable for the deaths of every Iraqi who has died as a result of the invasion. I disagree with that conclusion.

 

I think you have worded this a little more strongly than I intended. Bush gave orders that started a war. According to The Lancet, one result of that war was 650,000 extra Iraqi deaths. Obviously lots of people other than Bush share that responsibility. However, if you look at deaths caused by terrorists, then lots of people other than Bin Laden share responsibility also. Bush's orders must still be seen as causing massive harm to human bveings.

 

I did notice that you avoided responding to the more important error you made, regarding Iraq harboring terrorists.

 

Iraq did not harbour terrorists before the invasion, except incidentally. Hussein did not support Al Qaeda. Today, of course, Iraq is a major recruiting ground for Al Qaeda. Osama Bin Laden is laughing into his beard. Bush's invasion has been his most successful recruiting tactic in all time.

 

Let me get back to the basic message I wanted to put across. The above arguments are a distraction.

 

Americans need to understand why Muslims hate them. The basic reason is that Israel should not exist. It was created from land stolen from the Palestinians, who were a sovereign Muslim people, whose ownership of their own country should have been respected. Instead, Britain and the USA stole it from them and handed it over to the Jewish people who became Israelis.

 

Now, we cannot turn the clock back. What was done is done. Israel now exists and we must accept that. However, the aspirations of the Palestinian people should be respected and supported. They need their own land, without Israeli dominance.

 

If America wants to earn the respect of the Muslim world, and if America indeed stands for justice, then it MUST act as follows.

 

Pressure Israel to relinquish the conquered territories and hand them back to the Palestinians. Set up an independent sovereign nation of Palestine, without Israeli influence. Send vast amounts of American aid to set up this new nation, and make it prosper.

 

This will not, by itself, change history and make everyone love the USA. However, it is a start, and an essential one. Do that, and the recruitment to Al Qaeda will dry up. And it will cost a fraction of the cost of the Iraq war.

[Pangloss]

I think you have worded this a little more strongly than I intended. Bush gave orders that started a war. According to The Lancet, one result of that war was 650,000 extra Iraqi deaths. Obviously lots of people other than Bush share that responsibility. However, if you look at deaths caused by terrorists, then lots of people other than Bin Laden share responsibility also. Bush's orders must still be seen as causing massive harm to human bveings.

 

Fine, I agree with that.

 

 

Iraq did not harbour terrorists before the invasion, except incidentally. Hussein did not support Al Qaeda. Today, of course, Iraq is a major recruiting ground for Al Qaeda. Osama Bin Laden is laughing into his beard. Bush's invasion has been his most successful recruiting tactic in all time.

 

IMO you're mixing fact with fiction.

 

Incidental? Abu Nidal (PLO) and Abu Abbas (PLF, e.g. Achille Lauro) were high profile cases and everyone in the world knew exactly where they were. (Does that justify the invasion? No way.)

 

Al Qaeda met with Hussein's representatives, but nothing had yet come of it and nothing may ultimately have come of it. After all, Osama reportedly hated Saddam and there's always the Shi'a-vs-Sunni thing (it's not like Hussein was a friend to Shiites!). (Again, no causus belli.)

 

Is the invasion building up Al Qaeda? That doesn't seem to be supportable. What it seems to be doing is building up sectarian violence/terrorism. Civil war, Sunni vs Shi'a, that sort of thing. Which would likely have happened anyway even if we'd just assassinated Hussein. (But then the ABB crowd would just be chanting a different tune: "Bush assassinated a foreign leader and started a civil war that killed thousands!!!!!")

 

Al Qaeda rears its ugly head every now and then, but mostly gets it chopped off. But sure, I'd agree that the war has produced more terrorists, including more dead-bodies-walking for Al Qaeda.

 

Again, I'm not defending Iraq -- I opposed it and still do. But why mix and match truth and fiction, when truth is sufficient to make your point? I think the answer is because it's not as satisfying, and I beleive this kind of intellectual bankruptcy is the root of most international anti-Americanism and anti-Bush sentiment today.

 

What fails to be recognized is how damaging that is, and how it encourages and helps the terrorists.

[Pangloss]

Pressure Israel to relinquish the conquered territories and hand them back to the Palestinians. Set up an independent sovereign nation of Palestine' date=' without Israeli influence. Send vast amounts of American aid to set up this new nation, and make it prosper.

 

This will not, by itself, change history and make everyone love the USA. However, it is a start, and an essential one. Do that, and the recruitment to Al Qaeda will dry up. And it will cost a fraction of the cost of the Iraq war.[/quote']

 

How quick you are to spend my money! Can't you at least toss in a few sheep and call it a "coalition"? ;-)

 

(sigh) Yeah okay, I'll go along with that. I'll pay for that and fix the world for you. Sometimes it's easier to buy the kid bubble gum then it is to scold him and send him back to the car. Like you say, it's cheaper.

 

I don't care about the bowing and scraping. But I do expect gratitude when I do something right, and fair treatment when I make mistakes. I don't think that's too much to ask.

[mike90]

My two cents,first of all its understandable but IMO a mistake to beileve that you can reason with everybody. It is not possible to reason with terrorists and religious fanatics that beileve they are on some holy mission to exterminate this or that group of people.

Its hard to talk with people while they are shooting at you or bombing you.

 

I fully support preventing nutty regimes from obtaining nukes. With force if necessary. As Paranoia has tried to point out the basic drive throughout human history was to be the biggest baddest nation. Humans have a built in competitive urge to dominate, enslave, or destroy other cultures they find inferior or offensive.

 

Are we really idealistic enough to beileve fascist regimes that have built in religious or cultural beilefs that promote violence against anyone who disagrees with them can be trusted with weapons of that magnitude?

 

It would be nice to beileve that most people are decent at heart and every problem can be solved with diplomacy, but thousands of years of human history prove otherwise.

 

As far as the war in Iraq and current American foreign policy goes, honestly the mess our government and especially our president made of the whole situation make me ashamed to be an American. i beileved and continue to beileve that all the talk about terrorists and WMD's was just a smokescreen for our government to start a war for political reasons they normally would have had a hard time justifying.

 

In short i think they played on American fear and the rather pathetic sheep like mentality the average american has anymore to justify it. But then again it wouldnt be yhe first time our government threw us into a war we didn't want

[SkepticLance]

Pangloss.

I am glad to see some degree of agreement between us. I assure you that nothing I have said is a lie. Sometimes things can be interpreted two ways, of course.

 

I would love to see action taken by the USA which would lead to a lessening of global tension. I think you understand the importance of that. War is counter-productive almost every time.

 

The first principle in getting along with your neighbours is to understand them. Americans need to understand their Muslim neighbours (the whole world is one neighbourhood these days). History has created anti-

american feeling throughout the Muslim world and only drastic action plus time can change that. Let's make a beginning.

 

Mike90 said :

 

It would be nice to beileve that most people are decent at heart and every problem can be solved with diplomacy, but thousands of years of human history prove otherwise.

 

A study published a few years ago showed that about 10% of all human groups were people with no conscience. In other words, they had no compunction about doing anything whatever, no matter how harmful to others, if it was to their own benefit and they believed they could get away with it.

 

If you want a realistic picture of human nature, it is this :

10% of every human group, whether plumbers, labourers, nurses, or priests are total assholes.

20% are about half rotten.

20% are kind of neutral in the good vs bad scales.

50% are essentially decent human beings.

 

Sadly, ruthlessness confers a kind of power. This means that the 10% total assholes are over-represented among world leaders. They can be negotiated with, but only on the basis of what is good for them.

 

The total assholes in the general population can be partly kept under control by making it obvious that they cannot get away with evil actions. The murder rate per capita over the past 1000 years has dropped by an entire order of magnitude as a result of better policing.

 

Terrorists can be controlled, to a degree, also by making it obvious that becoming a terrorist will inevitably result in capture and punishment. One of the things that is sadly lacking in this world is a truly global police force. Perhaps that is something we should be working towards.

[mike90]

Really interesting post lance. Those numbers actually seem about even with how I view humanity. The problem seems to be situations when that 10% grabs control and is able to persuade that other 40% which normally isn't dangerous on their own into doing stupid things.

 

A global police force sounds like a great idea, but something that might be hard to form in the current political climate. Also hopefully they would use only properly trained military personnel, but I could see private secuirty firms getting involved. And with the repuation they have right now that wouldn't be good

[SkepticLance]

Mike.

I would love to see a global police force. Imagine having a bunch of tough guys who could march into a third world country and round up Al Qaeda.

 

Ain't gonna happen though. It would require an unprecedented degree of international cooperation. It would also require the world's only superpower to put all its efforts behind a force not under its control. I cannot see that happening!

[Dr. Dalek]

Actually, very few. The report of 650,000 deaths in Iraq as a consequence of the invasion was referring mostly to deaths of Iraqis killed by other Iraqis as a result of sectarian hatred.

So how is this George Bush's fault?

This hatred has always been there, but held in check by the previous government. Saddm Hussein is an evil bastard,

So he was Lawful Evil, all the more reason to get rid of him.

When his government fell, it released pent up rage. Of course, there was a terrible snowball effect. Sunni Muslims who tried to attack the new US led government, killed a lot of Shiites. The Shiites, however, were now a majority in the new police and military. They retaliated. A terrible escalation of hatred and death resulted.

It was well known before hand that getting rid of a government in such am unstable region and trying to replace it would result in stuff like this. Moreover when we have to do something we can't controll how people will respond to it, and we know for a fact we needed to git rid of Saddam. He may not have had WMDs but he did want them and we do know he was bribing UN officals through this Oil for Food thing, so he could have eventualy got them if he put the right bribes in the right places and waited long enough. So you can see we needed to get rid of him so it only makes sense that while we were in the region fighting terrorists we might as well have taken him out while we were there.

[mike90]

Wait Lawful Evil was that a D&D reference?

 

I don't agree with the idea that we went to " fight terrorism" and so we might as well bag Hussein while were at it. The government just threw out WMD, terrorists, and how big, bad, and scary Hussein was to whip Americans into a panic.

 

Since most americans are so sheeplike anymore, a lot of people still assume the reasons our government gives us for doing things is the actual reason, despite the long history of our government lying to us and manipulating us.

 

 

And pinning it on him being a bad leader and evil human being doesn't really work either. Its nice that we took an evil tyrant out of commission, but that definately wasn't the governments reason for doing it. If they truly cared about human rights they would have more to say about countries like korea, africa, mexico, etc and etc and etc.

 

There are evil regimes beating people down all over the world, and America is fine with leaving them alone. We also trade and have good foreign relations with a lot of countries that treat their people horribly. China immediately comes to mind.

[Dr. Dalek]

Wait Lawful Evil was that a D&D reference?

Yes but that dosn't matter.

I don't agree with the idea that we went to " fight terrorism" and so we might as well bag Hussein while were at it. The government just threw out WMD, terrorists, and how big, bad, and scary Hussein was to whip Americans into a panic.

No one panicked for one (except maybe the UN who generaly finds any action other than passig resolutions to be bad), for another thing the attack on Iraq was an attack on terrorism, just not a direct one. Its called multi-tasking. We get rid of one UN bribing, people killing, skud missle firing sleeze bag, then we give the a place to pour into, over the boarders or from there homes in the area, and use it as a second front to fight on, divding there forces so there will be less attacks at home.

Since most americans are so sheeplike anymore, a lot of people still assume the reasons our government gives us for doing things is the actual reason, despite the long history of our government lying to us and manipulating us.

Yes there are alot of sheeple out there, but if you don't think that the resons the Government gave us, or the reasons I have sugested, then what reasons do you think they have?

 

And pinning it on him being a bad leader and evil human being doesn't really work either.

Yes it does.

There are evil regimes beating people down all over the world, and America is fine with leaving them alone. We also trade and have good foreign relations with a lot of countries that treat their people horribly. China immediately comes to mind.

China has been getting better and they already have effective nuclear technology.

[Pangloss]

I'm not sure I agree that China's record on human rights is improving. I do think they're having to be more responsible for that behavior. The western world has more leverage in that area than they have in the past, due to increased economic interdependence.

 

In a sense, we're waiting for the first time that China has to deal with a widespread increase in unemployment (or some other problem) amongst its new middle class. We often say "a billion Chinese can't be wrong", but it's significantly more interesting to wonder what 300 million well-educated, well-paid, well-fed, globally-communicative Chinese think when they perceive that a crisis is at hand.

[SkepticLance]

Dr. Dalek said :

 

the attack on Iraq was an attack on terrorism, just not a direct one.

 

With all due respect to you, DD, that has got to be one of the silliest statements I have seen posted on this forum. The attack on Iraq was the reverse of an attack on terrorism. It was, instead, the biggest boost terrorism has had for a long time. Recruitment into Al Qaeda is up dramatically.

 

You should realise that the USA and the West in general are treated with deep suspicion throughout the Muslim world. The message that radical leaders promulgate is that there is a new crusade (and remember that the words crusade and crusader are equivalent to Muslims to terrible swear words) led by the USA and Britain. Invading Iraq simply verifies in the minds of millions of Muslims that this crusade is now underway. Unsophisticated people are led to believe that it is their duty to take up arms to defend their homes. Many are led on to being prepared even to commit suicide if it will take a few of the crusaders with them.

 

The invasion of Iraq was the biggest mistake Bush and his advisors ever made. I do not believe they were naive enough to think they could get away with it. The rest of the world (of which I am part) knew damn well that they would not. No, I think they went into Iraq with the aim of making short term economic and political gains. Which they did, for a while.

 

There is a lesson in human nature that we all need to learn. It is an old one.

"You will reap what you sow."

If we create a relationship with another nation with war-like aggression, then they will retaliate with equal aggression.

If we want a good relationship with another nation or another people, then we must approach them with benevolence. We will then reap friendship.

 

If the USA had gone into Viet Nam with medical aid, educational aid etc, over 2 million people would not have died, and Viet Nam would have become a friend of the US. The financial expenditure would also have been a tiny fraction of what was spent.

 

Ditto for Iraq.

 

If America is to learn, it must realise that, in future, it must use economic aid, and benevolent action to win friends. Begin with Palestine.

[ParanoiA]

SkepticLance -

 

Have you ever considered the idea that perhaps Iraq is nothing more than a point of focus for terrorism created by the administration? That perhaps it is the american government outsmarting Islamofacist murder clubs by giving them a decoy, for lack of a better word, to concentrate on?

 

Have you ever considered that perhaps, rather than play softball and negotiate with them for decades and decades, like everybody else tries to do and fails, that maybe it would be better just to take the lid off and let the fighting climax to its natural ends? They seem to be obsessed with death, so why should the current situation bother them any?

 

Also, irregardless of all of that, what exactly is the point of your multiple posts condemning the Iraq war? Were we, the united states, supposed to bake brownies and invite Osama and his buddies over for tea?

 

Would you treat your neighbor like that if he waged war on your family? Would you feel obligated to prove yourself to him? Try to change your image so he'll like you better and maybe stop attacking you? Or would you behave like most other humans and see his opinion of you to be his problem, which gives him no right to attack you?

 

Are we supposed to believe that Al Quada recruitment would stop as long as we kept doing what we were doing before 9/11...which was absolutely nothing?

 

What exactly should the US have done that would have peacefully removed America from the terrorists targets? I really want to know, since you seem to know so much about what not to do...

[mike90]

Dr Dalek: First off I wasn't making fun merely noticed the reference and found it funny Yes Saddam Hussein was a Bad Person but you can't justify war on that alone. Motivation is important too. Think of it like this, If you shoot a man to steal his wallet and he just happens to be a mass murderer, you are still in the wrong because of why you shot him. Basically the ends do not justify the means.

 

When I say panic I mean in the population in general. I don't know about where you live, but around here everyone was terrified in the wake of 9/11. And every time our government would announce were attacking somewhere else the general attitude was " well if our government is telling us these are the evil bastards that are responsible for 9/11 then lets blow em up. Scared people are easily controlled people, and I still beileve our government used that to their advantage folloowing 9/11, and they still continue to get away with just about anything as long as they claim its for " the war on terror"

 

Nothing I have read recently leads me to beileve anything has changed even minutely for the better in China. They are merely starting to realize if they are going to get along with the rest of the world they have to try a tiny biy harder to hide how barbaric they are towards there people.

 

As to why I beileve we really went to war? Most likely for monetary gain, to try to attain more control over the area, and because our leadership seems to think we are the Police Force To The Globe. I don't think it quite worked out the way they intended for it to

[SkepticLance]

ParanoiA said.

 

Have you ever considered the idea that perhaps Iraq is nothing more than a point of focus for terrorism created by the administration?

 

That is even more silly than DD's posting.

 

ParanoiA also said :

 

Also, irregardless of all of that, what exactly is the point of your multiple posts condemning the Iraq war? Were we, the united states, supposed to bake brownies and invite Osama and his buddies over for tea?

 

You seemed to have missed the point that Iraq before the invasion was not a terrorist threat. Hussein was NOT a friend of Al Qaeda. In fact, the terrorists regarded Hussein with contempt and enmity.

 

Let me repeat a point. Al Qaeda is NOT a sovereign nation. Therefore it is impossible to deal to them by waging war. Instead, they are a bunch of gangsters - the moral equivalent of the mafia. Thus, the appropriate way to deal with them is by suitable police action. Now, the only practical way of doing this is to begin by gaining information. This is done by inserting undercover agents into the Al Qaeda organisation. I have no doubt at all that this process is, in fact, underway. I suspect that Al Qaeda includes, among its members, agents from the CIA, MI5, Mossad, Pakistan, and others. These agents have probably already been responsible for some of the information leading to raids that badly damage Al Qaeda.

 

The problem is that effective action is not politically sufficient. The voting public need to see things being done, and the government is not going to tell them about undercover operations. Thus, we get the invasion of Afghanistan. This made Bush temporarily very popular. Politicians love this, and this was without doubt a factor in the decision to invade Iraq. He would have expected a quick victory which would have boosted his popularity even more. The fact that Iraq had oil, and the USA was insecure about oil supplies was doubtless a major reason also. The bumff about weapons of mass destruction etc were just rationalisations, as anyone who lacks naievity will realise.

 

And I repeat my earlier point. To win in the Middle East, you need to win friends, not enemies. The basic principle sounds sugar sweet, but works.

 

"If you are nice to people, they will be nice to you. If you are nasty to people, they will be nasty to you."

 

This applies to nations as well as individuals. It is so basic, that it gets overlooked. Hate and aggression provokes hate and aggression right back.

Politicians sometimes word this as 'winning the hearts and minds of the people'. Different words, but the same principle.

 

Begin by understanding the people, and then work to make friends.

Al Qaeda will be diminished by reducing their recruitment base. They can be mopped up in due course by police action as previously described.

[Dr. Dalek]

With all due respect to you, DD, that has got to be one of the silliest statements I have seen posted on this forum. The attack on Iraq was the reverse of an attack on terrorism. It was, instead, the biggest boost terrorism has had for a long time. Recruitment into Al Qaeda is up dramatically.

Thats the point, we have gotten rid of a hostile foe (namly Saddam) and created a place to fush out Al Queta members in the east to attack us on a new front. The people who are joining Al Queda now probably would have joined Al Queada anyway, we are just creating a situation to flush them out and kill all that attack us.

 

You may consider this underhanded, but I believe we are moraly superior to Al Queada, even with these methods and I can support this point with logical evidence if you wish.

[Dr. Dalek]

Yes Saddam Hussein was a Bad Person but you can't justify war on that alone. Motivation is important too. Think of it like this, If you shoot a man to steal his wallet and he just happens to be a mass murderer, you are still in the wrong because of why you shot him. Basically the ends do not justify the means.

We hardly took his walet, the only thing Iraq had in terms of value to us was oil, but get all of our oil from Venazuala, and the war only made it worse in terms of oil prices. If you look back you would see that oil prices took a sharp spike around the same time as the war, same goes for the Persian Gulf War. Given this it seems unlikly that Oil was the motavation.

 

When I say panic I mean in the population in general. I don't know about where you live, but around here everyone was terrified in the wake of 9/11. And every time our government would announce were attacking somewhere else the general attitude was " well if our government is telling us these are the evil bastards that are responsible for 9/11 then lets blow em up. Scared people are easily controlled people, and I still beileve our government used that to their advantage folloowing 9/11, and they still continue to get away with just about anything as long as they claim its for " the war on terror"

Of course they were terrified, they were being attacked. Also you seem to be forgeting that our government is Us. We are the government, who we elect and what we vote for determines the course of events, for the government to "Take advantage of the situation" would be futile and useless because these days all a war realy does back home is stir up protesters and propaganda, and over seas we had little other motavation asides from terrorists and other enamies such as Saddam.

 

Nothing I have read recently leads me to beileve anything has changed even minutely for the better in China. They are merely starting to realize if they are going to get along with the rest of the world they have to try a tiny biy harder to hide how barbaric they are towards there people.

True, but even that is a step forward. ONce they start acting a little less barbaric I feel it is only a matter of time before they take things down a few more notches. If they get positive results it will only fule more support towards human rights.

[SkepticLance]

DD said :

 

The people who are joining Al Queda now probably would have joined Al Queada anyway, we are just creating a situation to flush them out and kill all that attack us.

 

The people who are recruited by Al Qaeda are not, at first, evil. They are mostly angry young men of the type who would become Greenpeace activists in our society. Except that their religion is Islam, not the natural environment. If they feel that their nation and their religion is threatened, they will react. If there is no threat, then why should they?

 

In other words, the answer is no! Emphatically no! If Iraq was not invaded, they would not join Al Qaeda. The United States has created a whip for its own back. If I was wrong, then Iraq would have been supplying recruits to Al Qaeda long before the invasion, and it was not. Think it through.

 

DD also said :

 

If you look back you would see that oil prices took a sharp spike around the same time as the war, same goes for the Persian Gulf War. Given this it seems unlikly that Oil was the motavation.

 

That rather strange logic is a bit like the following :

"Joe Blow robbed a bank. He was caught, and sent to jail. He lost a lot of money through being in jail. That proves that his motive for robbing the bank was not money."

 

The fact that the Iraq war did not go as the US administration wanted, does not obviate the fact that access to oil was a major motive.

 

we are just creating a situation to flush them out and kill all that attack us.

 

Does not work that way. First, as stated above, you are genuinely creating new recruits, not just flushing out old ones. A whip for your back.

Second : You do not flush them out. They stay in hiding till they kill people. Your logic is not sound, I am afraid.