Re: The war in Iraq(debate)
The Paradox of Terrorism
- the terrorist want to kill us(only the the ones that want to kill us, u might think that this is selfexplanatory but aperantly some ppl get offended)
-terrorist ideology of hate breeds more hate, like a cancer if u will.
-if places like iran, iraq, afganistan, N korea,.... are allowed to exist freely, they will grow and gain power (nukes) and influence with their ppl (well maybe not N korea, the ppl hate the gov, but there really isn't a good ideology (religion) in that gov.).
-the hate will still remain, and it will most likely only become worse. (think Nazism)
-if some one is bent on killing you you can't negotiate them out of their goal, you will only aid them in negotiating as they won't do what you say, but they will take your incentives. Its kind of like trying to bargain some one down to selling you something for nothing, they won't do it, it doesn't achieve their end goal.
-change their ideology or destroy it altogether.
-in order to have real influence with the masses of ppl you must be in the country, or have your message boroad cast there, which won't happen because the governemnt won't allow it. In order to do that you would have to over throw the govenment which would require force (war), and then wait while being attacked by the ppl for them to get
-the latter involves probly nuking every one, which isn't such a good idea.
-to destroy their ideology and "fix" it, sort of a half way, you must kill the support system (gov+religon) and change the influence, which requires a governmnet over throw (war), killing of the enemies that are trying to then kill you, and then sustained presence untill they can take care of the problem them selves, or there isn't a problem anymore.
-your last option is to sit and let the cancer grow, hope they self preform kemotherapy and that its all good in the end. (not likely)
-this was our respose to Nazism and see how that turned out?
If we sit and let Iran for example be un challanged
(does the U.N. even count anymore as a challange? look at Iraq from 1991-2001, sudan, rwanda,....oil for food,....)
do you think that they won't develope nukes just because we want them to not do it? u don't think that they'l either use them or sell them to ppl who will once they get them?
-inaction won't fix the problem it will do the opposite
-iscolated strikes are played up on terrorist "news" systems as merciless killing of innocent babies
-if you criticize them they will kill Nun(s) (recent example)
-if u draw pictures of Mohamad they will riot and kill dozens and destroy ur embasy and not buy anyhting from you.
war is a terrible thing, and should NEVER EVER be used lightly, but islamo facism w/ nukes (vx gass or w/e) and intercontinental balistic missiles (and US stalled missile defence program, thanx dems) is MUCH MUCH worse, no matter how u spin it.
nuked NY and LA and seattle and...... is much worse than the US trying to establism a demoracy in the Middle east, even if violence is used. maybe Iraq didn't have nukes or WMD's but sadaam definitely supported that ideology (and funded it).
plus i don't see how PPL can say that on one side we failed to shut off the borders so foreign terrorist are pouring in, and then that on the other hand were only fighting the forces in a Civil war. U can't have both, and last time i checked we have captured Al queda members in Iraq.