- Joined
- Dec 22, 2005
- Messages
- 66,443
- Reaction score
- 47,482
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
then you need to go back to school, your union-teachers failed you; the US did neither of those things.
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
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
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.
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.
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.I was looking for a rational reply but if insults are all you have, then that's all you have!
Legacy of the Reagan/Thatcher Doctrine imo. Anti-Communist world policy, NOT pro-democracy.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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?
Of course there were "less" Al-Queda before our "War on Terror"
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"
Now, our entire "War on Terror" is a failure.
Again...this is the process.
Wasn't Iraq supposed to be our Vietnam? What happened to that?
The failure of our government and others was the prospect that we could ignore what has been brewing in the Middle East for decades.
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.
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.
Wupping up on our enemies always seems to make them respect us.
What's so scary?
Isn't the purpose of war to defeat the enemy?
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!
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!
Then why are we trying to do it?
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.
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.
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!
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.
That was the opinion of the conservative Rand Corp. in the Report on Terrorism commissioned by the Pentagon.
Yep, that's what they said about Vietnam too.
It still is. We still have over a hundred thousand troops there and it has already cost more than Vietnam.
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.
Yeah, its finally gained support in the Middle East after we killed a half million innocent Iraqis with our sanctions.
Why is that? I thought your argument was that we attacked the Middle East because they were a threat, not because of their oil?
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.
No wonder we have one of the highest crime rates of any country! Like father, like son!
That the our government will continue to kill innocent people in my name for oil.
When the war is over we will have defeated our enemy.
If their governments want us to defend Saudi and Kuwaiti oil, then we will do just that.
Partners become enemies and become partners again. This is diplomacy.
The Tali-Ban got crushed right out of power and democracy seats the government in their place.
There was no Civil War in Iraq.
The vast majority of all security has been under Iraqi forces for quite some time with considerable success.
You know what bothers me so much about protestors" They always seem to protest the wrong damn things.
Without the "quagmire" (which never existed) it is still a Vietnam? Let it go.
Of course. Are you shocked that oil is important to the world?
I assume you are aware that Bin Laden declared our sanctions over Iraq as one of the reasons for 9/11?
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.
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.
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.
Funny you say that.....Russia and France has sovereign oil fields in Iraq.
Why were the soviets interested in Nicaragua? Cuba? Vietnam?
Agree on the energy disagree on the rest.
Actually Libya is estimated to have more oil than Iraq.
That's simply not true. It's a big factor, but not the only factor.
You are ignoring a lot of the truth Cat.
Really?
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.
And this proves they were not interested in oil how?
I was not aware they were in the Middle East, which is what we were discussing.
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?
"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
Show me the threat they presented to the US, other than oil?
I would say the same of you Mac.
Yes, really, It was Saudis that attacked us on 9/11, not Iraqis.
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.
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.
No I do not. The rules governing international relations are not the same as the rules governing individuals. Simple truth.
Wow, I hadn't read that. But it's new data for everyone, no?
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 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?
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".
Thanks, I think of you the same. Now, let me ask you...what, on an international level, would you kill for?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?