War and Iran

From Wikiversity

Welcome to War and Iran!

This page is for a discussion that started on the Help Desk as the result of a question about War and Iran.

Contents 1 Iranian victory 2 The real reason 2.1 Lewis's response 2.2 StuRat's response 2.3 Daanschr's response 3 Point to be adressed on Lewis's response as to "the real reason" (or the doubts of a foreigner) 4 Iran and Iraq 5 Third World War? 6 See also

[edit] Iranian victory

If Iran and the US were to go to war would it be likely for Iran to win?? And do you think russia or china will side with Iran or would they just stay out of the conflict(if it occurs) — 71.98.86.190, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

may be they go with iran , just as a silent war partner and help iran to fight against US

I agree that, while the US could prevail in the initial ground war, as in Iraq, occupation would not work, unless the US was willing to resort to genocide, as it did during the Philippines occupation, to end the resistance. The logical conclusion, then, is that the US should conquer Iran, destroy all their weapons and weapons programs, destroy the airports and remove all airplanes and helicopters, take all Iran's gold reserves, take all scientists who might work on weapons programs, radical politicians and radical religious leaders as prisoners of war, then withdraw, except for retaining control of the borders and pipelines at the borders. They can then demand that Iran agree to pay reparations, allow continual UN inspections of all sites in Iran without notice, etc. Iran will, of course, refuse, so no peace treaty will be signed and a state of war will exist permanently, allowing the US to keep the POWs permanently, as the war is still officially on. If, at any point, it appears that Iran is rebuilding any weapons programs, the US, still being officially at war with Iran, can then bomb or invade, as necessary, and repeat the process. While nasty, this may very well be the only way to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons (which will lead to the entire Middle East getting them) and supporting terrorism against Israel and in Iraq. StuRat 16:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

War is a nasty business. And when individuals are willing to sacrifice their own lives, as well as the lives of other innocents (who may be the same nationality/ethnicity/religion as them), war in this transhumanist age becomes even more dangerous—should nuclear weapons find their way into the Middle East, it would likely be only a matter of time before one ended up exploding in Israel. And then how could the world react? Retaliation if the bomb could be blamed on terrorists? Who does the world nuke? Or is atomic warfare immoral and never justified? Do we simply allow such attacks? The questions are endless.

StuRat has an important point, however. At what point is the cost of prevention greater than the cost of nuclear proliferation? Is it worth destroying an entire nation to prevent a nuclear attack? What if Saudi Arabia were to also decide to persue nuclear technology? What if Israel? At what point do we draw the line? The Jade Knight 18:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Although they don't admit it, it's a virtual certainty that Israel already has nuclear weapons. They have shown restraint in not using them in their various wars and terrorist attacks, but I can't imagine this restraint would continue if they were hit with nuclear weapons themselves. Thus, we would have a nuclear war. StuRat 20:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Incidently, I don't think Russia or China would dare intercede and risk war with the US. Particularly Russia, which is no longer a military power that could remotely match the US. The Jade Knight 18:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

In answer to Jade's question, to me the problem of drawing the line isn't nearly as difficult as you seem to make it. Iran certainly is in no shape to have nuclear weapons, as it's shown every indication it would be willing to use them. Less so, but still problematic would be Saudi Arabia. Israel on the other hand, has (or has probably had) nukes for decades, but with no offensive or expansionist ambitions whatsoever, their existence is 100% for deterent effect. Where should we draw the line? Easy. Name me a non-nuclear country and I'll tell you how I'd feel about them having nukes. If, say, Sweden or Canada were to decide to develop nukes, I'd say: "go ahead, be my guest, though I really have know idea why you'd want nukes, I trust your intentions, whatever they may be, so if you want them so badly, ... go ahead". Loomis 16:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point. Up until now we've set the official goal of keeping anyone else from developing nukes and also getting rid of nukes in the countries which have them. A better goal would be just to keep them out of the hands of the evil countries, such as those which support terrorism, remain in a state of war with their neighbors, or have dedicated themselves to the destruction of another nation. StuRat 22:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Very well said. The only problem with your argument is that it seems to imply that the identification of "evil countries" would be a rather simple task. Well, between you and me, I'm pretty sure we'd agree almost entirely on which countries are "evil" and which are not. (Perhaps the better term would be evil regimes, as even Iran isn't an "evil country", rather it's controlled by an "evil regime".)

Take for example GWB's now infamous "axis of evil", consisting of Saddam's Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Putting all other criticism of the man aside for the moment, you have to admit that he at least got that one right (or for the cynics among you, his advisors and speechwriters got it right). Nonetheless, this "axis of evil" has since been rejected as a ridiculous concept, for purely ad hominem reasons. Basically, many people are convinced that the guy's a moron and a liar, which is of course their prerogative. However they then resort to specious logic and conclude that since he's a moron and a liar, the only logical extention is that anything and everything he says must by consequence be either moronic or a lie. Makes perfect sense, no? Of course not, it's nothing but specious logic at its worst. You can feel whatever you want about the guy, but as they say, "even a broken clock shows the correct time twice a day". Again, putting all other sentiment concerning the man aside, how many among you actually feel that the classification of the three above-mentioned regimes as consisting of an "axis of evil" of sorts was yet another moronic lie cooked up by GWB?

What I'm getting at is that all of those logically challenged moral relativists among us can't even agree to accept that the regimes of Iran and North Korea are evil, and remain part of an "axis of evil". Now if some of us insist that it's a completely unacceptable breach of "moral relativism" to label the Iranian and North Korean regimes as "evil", then how the hell can we possibly be expected to deal with all those other countries that fall into that enormous "grey area"? Lewis 16:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I firmly agree that Iraq, Iran, and North Korea had evil regimes, but that doesn't mean it was smart for Bush to say so publicly. The result seems to have been to make NK and Iran even more committed to getting nuclear weapons. Then the military attack on Iraq was the worst possible choice. The Afghan war needed to be finished first, and bin Laden killed, before the US considered such an "optional" war. And, even then, Iraq should have been low on the list of threats, relative to Iran and NK.

Treating countries differently based on them have good records or bad makes sense, but also requires that we abandon a UN approach, because such a large portion of those countries have poor records, even some on the UN Security Council, like China. NATO should be used instead to attack those evil regimes that try to get nuclear weapons. Although, apparently, we first need to convince some weak-willed Europeans that keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of people dedicated to our deaths is worth fighting for. NATO should also be expanded (and renamed) to include Australia, Japan, etc. StuRat 00:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

With the possible exception of the wisdom of publicly referring to evil regimes as just that, evil regimes, and with a few other relatively minor exceptions, we seem to almost completely agree. However, I disagree with you to the extent that I believe you're underestimating the influence of that great mass of mostly leftist, terribly misguided, pseudo-pacifist, moral relativist westerners. To me, THESE are the people that are at the core of the problem, even moreso than those insane ridiculous dictators of Iran and NK. Without this great mass of misguided western sympathy, these regimes would have collapsed a long time ago.

Let's say, for example, either the US or Israel decided enough was enough and "unilaterally" went about on an "illegal" violation of airspace and sovereignty, completely obliterating Iran's nuclear capabilities, and unfortunately, in the process, having to live with the tragedy of several hundred casualties due to "collateral damage".

Do you honestly believe that such smart-ass pseudo-pacifist moral-relativists such as, for example, Michael Moore, Bill Maher or Jesse Jackson would approve of such a flagrant breach of "international law"? Of course not. They'd just continue with their tiresome incoherent whining, throwing in as many red herrings as they can think of: "It's all about Oil! If the Iranians want nukes, we have no right to stop them, besides, Israel's got nukes, right? Why the "double-standard"? Then there'll be those hyper-pseudo-pacifists, boarding planes bound for Tehran with the intention of acting as human shields by holding hands and singing "Give Peace a Chance". Oh, and I almost forgot, we all know that any strike against Iran is obviously meant entirely to serve the interests of Haliburton, right? Lewis 01:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

A few nutjobs don't bother me, but I get the impression the majority of Europeans aren't willing to go to war to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Heck, many aren't even willing to impose strict sanctions.

I do have to say, however, that I'm mighty suspicious of Haliburton. We get into a war with Iraq, apparently on Cheney's faked evidence, then a no-bid contract is given to Cheney's old company, Halibruton. That's just not right. There should never be a no-bid contract in the first place. That's an obvious invitation for politicians to give away money to their associates. StuRat 03:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It surprises me that this section is entirely filled with anti-Iranian and pro-American users. So, perhaps it is good to here from a totally different perspective, namely me. I am not a pacifist. Sometimes war is necessary to preserve human dignity and justice. Only with justice, worldpeace can be reached. The biggest enemy of justice at the moment is the USA. I hope the Americans will retreat to their country, or else i fear for a Third World War, in which the world is united against the USA.

I don't agree with the left-wing opinion that America declared war on Iraq for oil. I believe that America in its self-righteous believe of being good as opposed to the Axis of Evil, tried to bring goodness to Iraq. Instead of the 'evil' dictatorship of Saddam Husein, a real democracy had to be installed by the Americans who supposedly are democratic. Present Iraq is good example of how democracy can fail royally. The Iraqis voted for their ethnicity (Kurds) and religion (sunnis and shiites). The shiites nearly got a majority. The ministry of interior came into the hands of a shiite extremist, who gave shiite death squats military and police uniforms. These death squads are now randomly killing thousands of sunnis. American soldiers are refrained from interphering, because they are obliged to cooperate with the Iraqi government. Under the dictator Saddam Husein there was peace in Iraq.

The democratic nature of the USA is dubious. The republicans stole the elections of 2000, by excluding several voter groups, like prisoners and blacks. President Bush was finally elected by the supreme court, which is not democratic at all. Furthermore, America suffers from a large autocratic sub-group, the orthodox calvinists, who vote what their ministers want them to vote for. The media is not critical about the American regime. I would say that America is semi-democratic instead of democratic, similar to Iran. Iran is dominated by religious extremists, but America is dominated by them as well. So, there is not a large difference between the states. If there is an anti-democratic axis of evil in the world, which include the conservative semi-democratic Iran, than the USA is part of it as well.

Lets look at the amount of danger that comes from Iran and the USA. Iran is a weak country, who doesn't have an atomic bomb yet. While the USA has plenty of atomic bombs and a desire to dominate the world. I think the only way to stop those evil Americans is a third world war, or hoping for a cultural change in the USA. Russia has threatened the USA with a new arms race. China is building missiles to knock out American satelites, so the preliminaries for a third world war has already started. I will not be neutral when the time comes, but i will be anti-american, together with the majority of the worldpopulation: 1.3 billion Chinese, 1.3 billion muslims, 500 million Latin Americans, most of the Europeans. But lets hope it will not come to this.

You can forget about European help for an American atack on Iran. It would be more likely that Germany and France would support Russia and China versus the USA, than that they will support the USA versus Iran.--Daanschr 11:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem of bringing democracy is that democracy is impossible in a way. Prove of this is that the USA is fighting for its self-interest, while in my opinion it would be more democratic to consider the interests of citizens in different countries. Neoconservatives in the USA believes that it is the American duty to dominate the world. This can't be democratic, because people outside the USA don't have the right to choose the American president, only americans have this right. Inside America, the claim of democracy is dubious due to the election fraud and the lack of critical press. The American foreign policy is dictatorial instead of democratic, because the world didn't have the right to choose for the direction of the American policy which is aimed at killing and dominating non-Americans. Ahmedinejad's Iran is more democratic than the USA, because Iran is hardly interphering in other countries, while having a same kind of semi-democratic system.--Daanschr 12:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"Under the Dictator Saddam Hussein there was peace in Iraq" .... except for a decade of war with its neighbor Iran, an invasion of Kuwait which was defeated by the U.S. in the first Iraqui-U.S. gulf and violations of the terms of surrender which provided adequate pretext for the Second U.S. Iraqui Gulf War or Invasion and Occupation ..... not to mention the occasional use of chemical weapons on Iraqui Kurds when they irritated the Dictator. A very model of a peaceful society the rest of the world should be happy to have attempting to develop weapons of mass destruction. 71.161.11.44 08:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

In 2003 there was peace in Iraq before the Americans (who have killed far more people than the Iraqis did) found it necessary to spread their 'principles'.--Daanschr 18:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I just saw a special about Iran on the Dutch television. There are 60,000 suicide bombers ready to defend Iran when the American army occupies the country. Iranians are very angry about the shah regime and the American supported Iraqi atack on Iran. I think an American atack on Iran really will become a Third World War, because Russia and China will (hopefully) never accept the willfully destruction of a nation of 70 million people by the Americans.--Daanschr 19:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Saddam was anything but peaceful, using every opportunity to attack his neighbors and ethnic and religious minorities, and killing millions, particularly in the Iran-Iraq war. While there was very limited US support for Iraq (mostly in the form of preventing Iran from severing the oil supply that flowed through the Persian Gulf), had the US offered full military support, including bombing of Iran, Iraq would have won the war. As for Iranian's being angry about the Shaw, he was gone before most Iranians were even born. The US has also done Iran an absolutely huge favor by removing Saddam, their main enemy in the region, from power and allowing the pro-Iranian Shia majority to take control. The US also removed their enemy of the other side, the Taliban in Afghanistan. Despite this, Iran continues to support insurgents in Iran and terrorists in Lebanon (Hezbollah) which threaten Israel and also threaten to undermine the government of Lebanon. Religion is much less of a factor in US government than in Iran, where every candidate must be approved by the Shia Muslim religious leadership. The US, on the other hand, has had a Catholic president (JFK) a Jewish candidate for VP (Lieberman) and has a Muslim Congressman. Bush was within a percentage point of winning the 2000 election by any count, so it's not like he "stole" the election. And blacks are allowed to vote in the US, I don't know where you got your info. Once Iran gets nuclear weapons, all the Sunni nations in the area will feel threatened and get them too, like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. Since Israel already has them, this will inevitably lead to a nuclear war in the Middle-East, which may very well spread. And the Iranian president holding a conference discussing whether the Holocaust ever happened is about as insulting as if Israel had a conference discussing if Mohammed ever existed. StuRat 18:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the shah and the Iraq-Iran war, i was referring to what Iranians think about America. Last year i saw a documentary about Venezuela and i now understand more why these two countries are such good friends. At first i was surprised, because Iran is conservative, islamist, with a president that want to fight against all non-muslims. Venezuela on the other hand is moderately christian and ultra-left-wing. Actually, the the countries are fairly similar. They are both in the first place aimed at ending American imperialism. Venezuela feels being mistreated by the Americans because the Americans supported the exploitation of the labour class by the Venezuelan elite. While Iran is anti-american because America implemented the exploiting regime of the shah and supported Iraq in its war with Iran. The main pain for the Iranians is the Iraqi use of weapons of massdestruction which killed 500,000 Iranians. Iranians believe that America delivered these weapons to Iraq. The death-toll of this war was so severe that anti-americanism is very popular, much more than in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, i guess that the amount of American deaths in a future invasion would be much higher. America will not be regarded as liberators.

Several voting groups have been excluded in the elections of 2000, especially the prisoners. The American prisons are mainly filled with blacks. Blacks are discriminated in the American society and now the black criminals can't vote anymore. In my country, the problem of criminality would be solved by improving education, neighbourhoods and job opportunities, instead of puting enormous amounts of people in prisons where they have to do slave labour.

Sunni-countries would be more fearing of Israel having atomic bombs, than Iran having them. And Israel already got them. Here is what muslims and non-muslims in the Middle East think of America.

The inheritance of the holocaust is being abused by Israel and the USA at the moment, so i agree with Iran in this issue, allthough i believe that the holocaust did happen and was wrong. But it also happened in the past. At the moment, it is very wrong to use the memory of the holocaust to start a massmurder.--Daanschr 19:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What mass murder are you talking about ? By far, most Muslim deaths are caused by other Muslims. The biggest mass murder would happen if Iran gets nuclear weapons and uses them against Israel, who would respond with theirs. The Sunni nations know Israel isn't going to attack them with nuclear weapons, as Israel has had them for years and hasn't even threatened to attack using them. Iran, on the other hand, constantly threatens to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. StuRat 20:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Deaths are not only the result of fighting. Bad medic healthcare and lack of food and clean drinking water should also be seen as real deaths. Al Qaeda and the Mahdi Army are primarily aimed at getting the Americans out, so most deaths in Iraq are caused by the Americans.

You are confusing what they say with the truth, which have nothing to do with each other. Al-Queda very much wants the US to stay in Iraq, as that allows them to stir up Arab "outrage" and get more recruits. The W:Mahdi Army, and it's leader, W:Muqtada al-Sadr also have been huge beneficiaries of US involvement in Iraq. The US removed Saddam, who killed his father, W:Mohammad Mohammad Sadeq al-Sadr. The US allowed Sadr to gain power through terrorism, and they also gain recruits and support for their terrorism from Iran as long as the US remains there. If Sadr really wanted Americans out, he would attack them, but most attacks are aimed at rivals for power inside Iraq, proving that what he really wants is power. StuRat 17:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

In 2001, i was in Egypt and heard that the Israelis had threatened to blow up the Aswan dam, which would result in a giant flood wave with would kill most Egyptians in a single day. But this would never get on the American tv, i guess.--Daanschr 09:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't make it on US news because it's propaganda from the terrorists, like that 9-11 was really done by Jews. Israel has peaceful relations with Egypt, and has since W:Anwar Sadat made peace decades ago, so there is absolutely no reason to think Israel would threaten that peace. If the Israelis wanted to commit genocide, they would kill off the Palestinians, but don't, despite the fact that they easily could. This shows they don't want to, unlike the Hamas-led Palestinian government, which is dedicated to killing all Jews and destroying the state of Israel. StuRat 16:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The real reason

Shouldn't the real reason why anyone would declare war with Iran be the fact that the country is ruled by an evil regime, no matter whether this regime wants to have nuclear weapons or not? a.z. 04:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lewis's response

I tend to agree in principle, yet the Iraqi experience is proof enough that taking military action against an evil regime, even an evil regime with a track record of using WMD's and a complete refusal to account for their supposed "disposal", is now not only considered a strategic mistake (a position that I disagree with, though still one I can respect,) but actually considered "morally wrong".

Sure, the Iraq invasion may have lacked solid strategic coherence with regard to the larger war on terrorism (another position I largely disagree with, but one I can respect nonetheless) and its logistical planning may have been a mess, but I still believe the war to be a just one, WMDs or no WMDs. What has always frustrated me about the Bush approach, though I agree with the ultimate choice to invade, was his continuous overuse of the WMD card. It even frustrated me then, as it was a clear case of pandering to the UN's ridiculous requirements. Though this may make me sound like an armchair general speaking in hindsight, please believe me that these were my very thoughts AT THE TIME. WMDs weren't really at the top of my mind at any point. If it were me, I would have downplayed the whole WMD thing, citing it as but one of the many reasons the rest of the world had a moral obligation to topple Saddam. I would have downplayed the "Al-Qaeda-ties" part as well. Saddam obviously played no direct or even indirect part in 9/11. Yet he did help in lending great legitimacy to terrorism.

I would have placed largest emphasis on the most factually evident aspects of his regime: Saddam was a bloody murderer; he attacked Iran, Kuwait and even gassed his own people; he indeed did support terrorism, perhaps not Al-Qaeda, but rather in the form of the $25,000 cheques he issued to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers; during the '92 gulf war he launched scud missiles at population centres in Israel with absolutely no provocation on Israel's part. Sure, it might have been a good strategy indeed to provoke Israel into retaliating and in doing so breaking up the coalition, yet still it was completely morally unnaceptable of him to launch missiles at the largest population centres of a country that played no active role whatsoever in the war. (And it was equally wise and disciplined of Israel to resist responding despite the fact that it had every right to do so).

Basically, what I'm saying is that in placing far too much emphasis on the whole WMD issue and the implication that Saddam was somehow tied up with Al-Qaeda, GWB, with an entire stack of far more solid evidence to indict Saddam and justify his removal, played all the wrong cards in that stack. Saddam's proven track record was reason enough.

Had Bush steered away from all the WMD speculation and opted for the more terse "Detective Joe Friday" approach of focusing on "the facts, ma'am, just the facts", and spun the whole thing as just the next logical step in the dismantling of regimes that promote terrorism, I believe that Saddam's rap sheet on what everyone agrees he actually did do would have been long enough to justify an invasion to topple him. The man was obviously an incredibly dangerous malignant tumour in the heart of the Middle East and as such he just had to be removed, whatever the cost. Had the war been "sold" that way, I believe there would be be far less resistance to it today. The decision to place such central emphasis on the whole WMD thing was an unfortunate blunder. The WMDs were never found, and though I'm still not satisfied as to what actually happened to them, and still strongly believe that Saddam pulled off yet another shell game by perhaps transferring them temporarily to Syria, dumping them in a deep whole in the middle of nowhere in the Iraqi desert, or whatever, it was just plain dumb to place so much emphasis on them that they essentially became the raison d'être for the war.

Of course now that the WMDs were were never found, to a large part of the world the invasion was therefore completely illigitimate.

I'd just like to add that despite all the above, I consider myself to be a pacifist. Yet I never participate in peace rallies or anti-war protests of any kind whatsoever, no matter how well intentioned they may be. This is only my take, but it's my firm belief and I'll finally make it clear right here: Peace protests in the vast majority of cases simply do not help in bringing peace about. In fact, as bizarre and counterintuitive as this may sound, I firmly believe that they can actually serve to encourage violence and war. All they ultimately accomplish is the demoralization of our own troops, while at the same time boosting the morale of the enemy. Think about it. A marine turns on a TV and tunes in to CNN at his base somewhere in the desert, only to see Maria Hinojosa and others reporting on all the massive anti-war demonstrations going on in practically every major city in the world. Smart asses who couldn't fight even if they wanted to because they're just so grossly obese that they'd never be allowed on the battlefield, guys like Michael Moore consider you a fool and a stooge. Not only had the marine originally believed that he was risking his life for his own country, for the Iraqi people, and ultimately for all of humanity, now he's being told that mobs and mobs of people across the world, worst of all including his fellow Americans, consider his mission to be entirely illegitimate, and perhaps even a war crime. Quite the morale booster, eh?

Now send that marine into battle and don't tell me that now, having been completely demoralized, his performance is not affected, and the odds of him being killed in action haven't increased dramatically.

As for the enemy, try to picture some Iraqi insurgent watching that very same telecast with absolute glee. "Praise be unto Allah! All of attempts at resisting the cowardly American infidels is indeed paying off! Day by day the cowardly American infidels are losing their stomach to fight, growing more and more tired of the war and more and more of them are demanding their government admit defeat and bring their troops home! We'd better just keep at it and eventually we'll have completely broken their will to fight! Allah Akhbar! God is great! And he is indeed proving his greatness by showing us that the faithful, depite being far more poorly equipped than the cowardly American infidels, with the help of Allah, praise be unto him, and through our faithful devotion to him, we're actually managing to win a war against the mightiest of miltary forces: The Great Satan and his massive armies! How much more proof do we need that Allah, praise be unto him, is watching over us and guaranteeing us victory? The Koran indeed teaches love, compassion and peace for all of humanity, so let us naturally observe these noble principles and join together in saying: Death to America! Death to Bush! Death to Israel! Death to Antarctica! (wait a sec, that last one made no sense at all, I suppose I just got carried away with all the love, compassion and peace that Allah, praise be unto him, has instilled in my heart). Needless to say, just as always, the next time I hear of yet another "peace rally" being held in Montreal, no matter how much I genuinely despise violence and wish for an end to all war, I sure ain't gonna be there! Lewis 10:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Some people may agree that there is an evil regime in Iran and they may believe that this should be dealt with by governments of other countries, and despite not being against ever going to war, they may think that war is not the right choice right now. They may think that the best way to deal with a specific evil regime is to impose economic sanctions. Is this a respectable position in your opinion (no matter how stupid you may find it)? a.z. 02:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] StuRat's response

There are a huge number of countries ruled by evil regimes, more than we could hope to overthrow. Most only pose a threat to their own people. For example, the governments of W:Zimbabwe and W:Myanmar, while evil, don't threaten the West. It would therefore be next to impossible to get people to agree to fight and die to remove those governments. StuRat 04:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daanschr's response

The amount of evilness is hard to detect. What strikes me is that poor countries tend to be less free and democratic, than rich countries. Only hard measures like population control could make an end to poverty and to dictatorship. At the moment, i think that the USA is the only real evil country in the world, because the Americans are trying to force the world into a Third World War. If this world war really is the result of the American policy, than i will be an enthusiastic supporter of the opponents of the USA.--Daanschr 11:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Why would the US possibly want a third world war ? That makes no sense at all. Al-queda and similar terrorist organizations, on the other hand, want just that, and are trying to provoke such a war, with the 9-11 attacks and many others. They reason that they will get more recruits during such a war than they can while peace exists. StuRat 18:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Al Qaeda is small and is losing support given the reduction of suicide bombings outside Iraq and Afghanistan. Al Qaeda doesn't want a Third World War, but a worldwide rise of muslims and establishment of a new khalifate, which didn't happen. There are no similar terrorist organizations. Many organizations that are described as being similar to Al Qaeda are not similar at all. Hezbollah is a political organization for Shiites in Lebanon that only atacked Israel last year to liberate prisoners. Hamas supports Palestinians in the occupied territories who want to recover the territory which they lost in 1947 and 1967.

I don't believe that the USA wants a Third World War, but their arrogance surely brings it closer. A Third World War is inevitable if America keeps believing in the fallacy of being a superpower that has the right to interphere in the affairs of other countries by invading them with a huge army.--Daanschr 19:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Al Queda's method of getting recruits for the "worldwide rise of Muslims and establishment of a new Khalifate" is to goad the US and Western nations into war, hoping to get as many Muslims killed as possible in the process, so Muslims will be willing to fight against the West. There are many other terrorist organizations with similar, or at least compatible, goals. There was W:Al Queada in Iraq, there is the organization that bombed the night club in Bali, there is the organization that bombed the trains in Madrid, there is the group that attacked the buses and subways in London, etc. There are also Muslim terrorist groups dedicated to a single local cause, like Hezbollah and Hamas dedicated to the murder of Israeli civilians. StuRat 20:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

9/11 is now 6 years ago, the bombings in Madrid 3 years. Al Qaeda is doing a pretty bad job and is probably very small. Israelis are occupying the Palestininian territories and have killed far more Arabs, than that the Arabs killed Jews. In the 1990s i saw an interview with the Israeli minister of water supply. The interviewer asked the minister why colonists were cleaning their swimming pool every day, while Palestinians nearby had not enough water to take a shower. His response was that the Israelis had won the war in 1967 and could do whatever they wanted. Hamas and Hezbollah are fighting against this injustice and i support their cause of killing Israelis.--Daanschr 09:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There are many reasons for Palestinian poverty, most of which are the fault of Muslims:

1) Muslim nations, which easily have the oil wealth to make huge improvements in the Palestinian economy, instead send only weapons and bombs.

Muslim countries are less to far less developed compared to the west, only the small state the United Arab Emirates has a wealth comparable to that of the Scandinavian countries and the USA.

You seem to be "pleading poverty". That is, your saying none of them (except the UAE) has the money to help. That just isn't true, look at these figures:

Saudi Arabia: US$374 billion GDP, or US$13,800 per person.

Kuwait: US$ 52 billion GDP, or US$21,600 per person.

Oman: US$ 44 billion GDP, or US$14,100 per person.

Qatar: US$ 26 billion GDP, or US$29,400 per person.

UAE: US$129 billion GDP, or US$49,700 per person.

Palestine: US$ 3 billion GDP, or US$ 2,050 per person.

Any one of those countries could certainly manage to donate US$ 3 billion to double to Palestinian economy, if they wished. If they each did that, the Palestinian economy could increase sixfold ! Then, there is also the case of less wealthy countries which donate to terrorism, like Iran and Syria, which support Hezbollah, and the former Iraq under Saddam which paid US $25,000 to the family of each suicide bomber. If they can find the money to do that, they could find the money to actually help a peaceful Palestinian economy instead of escalating war. StuRat 10:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

America tries to remain rich and gives hardly anything to the world except for a fist of steal in your face. So, why should poorer countries solve problems that America doesn't want to solve? America is deliberately helping Israel by vetoing resolutions of the UN, of which only the USA as a permanent member is against.

The US and West don't want to give money to the Palestinians because of diversion of those funds for weapons. Arab nations obviously aren't worried about that since they give weapons directly. They just don't want any money to be used to promote peace, since eternal violence between Palestine and Israel serves their purposes. Namely, any anger from their populations aimed at those dictatorships can be redirected against Israel. StuRat 18:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

2) Whenever Palestinians are given control of their borders, seaports and airports, they then use that access to bring in more weapons and bombs. Thus Israel needs to restrict such access.

There was peace in the 1990s, which ended when Sharon walked under the Temple mount.

"Peace" doesn't mean the Palestinians weren't stockpiling weapons. And somebody "walking" would only start a war with the Palestinians. If they want peace they need to learn to allow their enemies to "walk". StuRat 11:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Just like the Jews who poisened the wells during the Black Death, or the fascist Germans that sabotaged the fields to reduce the output of grain.

"Jews who poisoned the wells during the Black Death" ? Where did you pick up that bit of anti-Semite propaganda ? StuRat 18:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

3) Whenever Palestinians are given unrestricted access to Israel, they use it to murder civilians. Thus access must be controlled and the wall is necessary.

Most Palestinians use the unrestricted access to work in Israel and now both the Palestinian and the Israeli economy are wrecked. There are many holocaust survivors who hardly have anything to eat.

Most, yes, but it only takes a few suicide bombers to make the cost of allowing in Palestinian workers to be much higher than the benefits. The Israeli economy isn't "wrecked", either. They have a US$ 140 billion GDP, or US$26,200 per person. StuRat 11:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The nazis killed 50 people, or exterminated a whole village when they lost one soldier who was killed by 'terrorists'.

And the Israelis don't target anybody except those who actually attacked them, unlike the Palestinians who target Jewish civilians. StuRat 18:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

4) Palestine's most talented engineers, instead of working to improve the economy, instead make rockets and suicide belts.

I don't think that there are many intellectuals left in the Palestinian Territories. I suspect that the most talented Palestinian engineers live in the USA or Europe.

Probably because, if they remained in Palestine, they and their families would be threatened with death if they didn't build weapons for Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the other terrorist groups there. StuRat 11:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, evil guys always do that. That's what you got with enemies of the people.

But these enemies of the people (Hamas) are elected by the people, showing that Palestinians are their own worst enemies. StuRat 18:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

5) Palestinians have an unsupportable high birth rate. They basically live in the desert (as do many Israelis), yet still have so many children there is nothing for them to do but blow themselves up.

That is the strange effect of poverty. Rich people get extinct and poor people recreate. In Jordan and Algeria, the governments try to end the desire of blowing oneselfs up for islam by giving good education and job opportunities. they see it as the only way to combat islamist extremism. President Mubarak of Egypt believes that his country could be destroyed by islamism.

The Palestinian "education", on the other hand, seems to encourage people to have as many children as possible, to supply more suicide bombers. StuRat 11:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Strange how radical people can become when they are occupied. By whom are you occupied? Liberalism? Pornography? Homosexuality? Mexican immigration? Big government? Atheism?

The US isn't radical, unless you consider opposing terrorism to be radical. But then, that's what I suppose I should expect from someone who supports a nation with a terrorist government, like Palestine. StuRat 18:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

6) Surrounding Arab nations that could cede land to the Palestinians to give them more living space refuse. Those that take in Palestinian refugees treat them as second-class citizens, locked away in refugee camps, instead of working to integrate them into their society.

It depends no the country. The majority of the population in Jordan are Palestinian refugees. They now dominate society and politics and Jordan is an American ally.

There are only 1,835,704 Palestinian refugees in Jordan, according to UNRWA, out of a total population of over 6 million, so not a majority. StuRat 11:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

More than 50% of the population is of Palestinian decent, so that makes a majority.

You said "Palestinian refugees" in your original response, not "those of Palestinian descent" (does that include even partial descent ?). Using your definition, the US is 99% full of European refugees, African refugees, Asian refugees, etc. LOL. StuRat 18:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

7) Palestinian education (and much of Muslim education in general), instead of teaching multiculturalism and skills needed to improve the economy and live with others in peace, teaches hatred and the value of martyrdom.

That is not very dissimilar of America. And still the Palestinians voted Abbas in office instead of Bush.

No, the US teaches multiculturalism. Just look at TV shows for children, like W:Dora the Explorer, W:Go, Diego, Go!, and W:Dragon Tales which teach that Hispanics (the largest minority in the US now) and the rest should be bilingual and work together. Look at W:Sesame Street and W:Postcards from Buster, which teach multiculturalism. You won't find a single TV show for kids that teaches "America is for whites, and everyone else should leave". You will find many Palestinian shows, however, that teach "Palestine (which, to them, includes Israel) is for Palestinians and everyone else (Jews) should leave or be killed. StuRat 11:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You exclude foreign countries and nations.

I do not. Many Hispanics in the US are of foreign origin, and those shows, particularly W:Postcards from Buster, feature minorities from all over the world, like the W:Hmong, W:Kurds, etc. Similarly, the character W:Grover, on W:Sesame Street travels all over the world to teach acceptance of other cultures. StuRat 18:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

8) Palestinians, when offered the right to control their own territory, refused.

That has never occured. There are millions of refugees from Israeli occupied territories who don't get the right to return to their homes. They are forced to live in other areas and can't return to their home towns anymore.

They refused to agree to the W:2000 Camp David Summit, which would have given them control of most of Palestine (not including Israel). StuRat 11:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The Arabs want a solution for the refugee problem.

They Arab nations could easily accommodate all Palestinians refugees if they would allow them to be integrated into their societies. The real reason for the rejection was that peace might have threatened Arafat's hold on power. His cancellation of elections, corruption, and support of terrorism would be called into question had a peace agreement been signed. In a continual war, however, he managed to remain popular until his death. StuRat 18:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

9) Palestinians, when given the chance to elect a peaceful government, instead elected terrorists (Hamas), which, of course, led Western nations to stop donating money to the (now terrorist led) government.

That is the problem of warzones. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians have the tendency of radicalizing. It is reminiscent with Northern Ireland and will take decades, maybe even centuries to resolve.

It's just another example of how Palestinians, when given the opportunity to improve the situation (by electing somebody who would work for peace), instead are their own worst enemy. StuRat 11:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Voting for moderates doesn't necessarily improve your situation. Peace in slavery is no peace at all. Peace is only possible with respect and justice, something very impopular in the USA at the moment.

Voting in moderates would definitely improve the situation. How could voting in a terrorist gov possibly help ? There is no way Palestine could defeat Israel militarily, and provoking Israel will do nothing but bring the Palestinians more trouble. Palestinians are in no way "slaves", unless you consider the Israelis asking them not to blow themselves up to be "abridging their freedom of expression". StuRat 19:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

10) Funds donated to Palestinians by charities and Western governments to improve the economy were instead diverted to buy guns and bombs and/or to line the pockets of corrupt officials. StuRat 16:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The economy can only be improved if Israel and the Palestinians cooperate. Western money can only have a benefit if the Israelis and Palestinians are peaceful to eachother.

The Palestinians need to stop attacking Israel, yes, and then Israel will no longer need to fight back to stop those who fire mortars, build rockets, launch suicide bombers, etc. In the meantime, there's no reason why donated funds can't be used to build roads, hospitals, and schools, and teach children proper values, not how to be a martyr. Instead, they steal the money and/or use it for killing. StuRat 11:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

America has the death penalty. America neglects large parts of the population who can only earn a living by killing people in Iraq. I don't agree with the admiration of martyrdom in Palestine, but morally speaking the Americans are no better than the Palestinians.

You are using the death penalty as a sign that a country is evil ? The Russians who you so admire have executed millions, mainly for political reasons (versus only thousands in the US, and for criminal reasons). They are discussing ending their current moratorium on the death penalty, which they only put in effect in 1996 under pressure from Europe. The US had a similar moratorium for decades. Many other nations have the death penalty, too, like China, which executes far more people than the US. And nobody in the US starves if they don't join the military. StuRat 19:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, you are exaggerating in the same fashion as the nazis and stalinists used to do, by dehumanizing others.

What specifically am I exagerating about ? Or do you just like to call people names ? StuRat 19:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This post is dehumanizing. This kind of people-bashing is similar to what the stalinists and the nazis did. By choosing the words that you did, you are condemning the Palestinians to death. If you change the word Palestinian by Jew or enemy of the people, than you will get nazi or stalinist texts.--Daanschr 07:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Which of the points do you disagree with ? For example, do you deny that the Palestinians elected Hamas ? Do you deny that Hamas has an official policy of murdering Jewish civilians until Israel is wiped off the face of the Earth ? If you tell me which points you disagree with I can likely provide evidence for each point. StuRat 17:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is a Jewish site, which is against the support that is being given by the Americans to Israel. This site is referring to a Dutch documentary which i saw on the Dutch television. There were Israeli Jews in this documentary whom have started a lobby against AIPAC, because they were afraid that Israel would lose support around the world once America stops supporting Israel. I am wondering what your opinion is about them.--Daanschr 09:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

StuRat is American. Do you think he is trying to force the world into a Third World War? a.z. 23:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The country USA is doing that. Individual Americans have too little power.--Daanschr 06:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Americans do have political power. Evidence of that is that they were able to remove Nixon from the Presidency. If the US was the dictatorship you suggest, once a president got into office, nobody could ever get him out. The US press is also quite negative on Bush now that he is unpopular. StuRat 20:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that America is a dictature, i say it is semi-democratic. There is a huge voters block of the christian right that does anything that its leaders want them to do, which is absolutely not democratic. Many news media, government agencies, including the office of president are occupied by the christian right. It is this group that excluded the black prisoners and wants to wage a total war versus terrorists, crazy enough supported by some Jews and liberals who call themeselves neoconservative.--Daanschr 09:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Non-democratic is the continuous agressive bashing of all people who don't conform to the American dogmas. The AIPAC, that tries to test the loyalty of democratic and republican senators every week. A conformist media that uses the words made up by neoconservatives to distort the truth in a way which would be impossible in Western Europe.--Daanschr 09:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If the Christian right has such total control over the election process, why does the US now have a majority of left-leaning liberal Democratic in both houses of Congress ? I would expect the next President (elected later this year) to be a Democrat or, at the vary least, a moderate Republican, definitely not another conservative. Blacks are not excluded from voting, I don't know where you get your misinformation. Evidence of this is that, in my city (W:Detroit), as in many other major cities, the last 3 mayors, the majority of the city council, the Chief of Police, most of the school board, and most other elected officials, are black. Most of the media is quite liberal. For example, W:NPR. There are only a few conservative news stations, like W:Fox News. StuRat 16:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"The country USA" can mean different things to different people. You'll have to be more specific if you'd like me to understand you. When I read your first post, I thought you were saying that the US citizens wanted to drive the world into the Third World War. Now you are referring to an abstract entity that could mean anything: who are those people that want the Third World War to happen? And how do you know they do? a.z. 16:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Iraq and Iran are also abstract entities. Why should they be atacked and occupied if Iraq and Iran can mean different things to different people?--Daanschr 06:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No vague idea of an entity should be attacked, only concrete threats like people with a lot of power that are willing to use it to harm other people. a.z. 04:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Given StuRats opinion of the Palestianians, than i know who i should regard as a threat. Putin has already threatened the USA with another Cold War and it appears that a majority of the worldpopulation is living in countries that would support Putin without any doubt. That would exclude my country Holland. But, Belgium and Germany most definitely would support Putin, meaning that Antwerp, a city some 80 kilometres from my home could be the target of an American nuke.--Daanschr 07:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Your reading of global political alliances is tragically flawed. Belgium and Germany are members of W:NATO, in an alliance with the US, not Russia, no matter what politicians may say. If they were really switching sides, they would leave NATO and join Russia in a military alliance like the Warsaw Pact. Germany, in particular, isn't likely to forget that half of their country was kept hostage by Russia for decades after WW2 and would fear a repeat of that without NATO protection. StuRat 18:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If a new cold war between the USA and Russia really is the result of the present situation in worldpolitics, than it is beyond a doubt that Germany will side with Russia instead of the USA. In the last German elections, the right-wing parties were doing best in the polls. The socialist candidate Gerhard Schröder managed to win the elections for the left solely by playing up the anti-american sentiments in the German society. Present foreign minister of Germany, Steinmeier is outspoken anti-american and pro-Russian. Chancellor Angela Merkel keeps a strict policy of neutrality between Russia and the USA, knowing that her own christian-democratic party is very scepticle about America. At the heart of the German resentment to the USA is that the neoconservative retorics is in multiple ways equivalent to that of the nazis, which becomes apparent if you read your own opinion about the Palestinians.--Daanschr 07:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You confuse what politicians say during an election cycle (anything against anyone unpopular at the moment, like Bush, to get themselves elected) versus long-term strategic alignments, shown by agreements like NATO. Again, if there has really been a permanent fundamental shift in the alignment of Germany, then why on Earth would they remain in NATO instead of withdrawing and closing all the US bases there ? StuRat 11:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Germans want to stay in the NATO, but they also want the USA to do something positive in the world instead of bringing the world at the brink of a nuclear war. Now, they are still part of NATO, but that could change.

Schröder used anti-americanism for his own selfish reasons. He couldn't stand that the social-democrats were losing the elections while he was chancellor. Still, he didn't create anti-americanism, he used it. Anti-americanism has little to do with German politics and more to do with the German public opinion, with the way Germans are raised by their parents, taught at school by their teachers, by the kind of newspapers they want to read.--Daanschr 12:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I see another characteristic in which your opinion is similar to that of the nazis and the stalinists. The first similarity is the dehumanization of those who are seen as your enemy in an absolute fashion, comparable to the Jews in Nazi Germany and the enemies of the people in the Soviet Union, even making up arguments when confronted with critic, to ensure that you will always keep your enemy with an absolute evilness. A second similarity is thinking that people are your ally or friend when they most definitely aren't.

Last year i was writing a paper about the stalinist prime minister of East Germany, Walther Ulbricht. In the late 1940s, when the Cold War wasn't there yet, he held a speach in Nuremburg in the American sector, aimed at fighting dollar-imperialism. Stalin thought that the West German workers would rise against the Americans, but they didn't of course. The West German workers were pro-american and voted for the social-democrats. Strange is that Ulbricht even tried. His speech wouldn't be a succes, it would only weaken his position. Why trying something that stupid?

It is similar to the tour of Bush to Latin America, which strengthened the left-wing opposition of course. Every step Bush made would have made the Latin-Americans more angry. I liked the speech of the conservative president of Mexico. It made sure that the Americans can't even count on the Mexican right-wingers.

Another great example is president Franco of Spain. Germany and Italy had send troops and airplanes to ensure that Franco won from the left-wingers and start a fascist regime in Spain. During WWII, Franco remained neutral. Hitler was very angry about it, calling Franco a traitor. He even thought about marching through Spain to Gibraltar, but the German armies were too much occupied on the Eastfront and in the Balkans. Franco was smart. He remained the dictator of Spain untill the 1970s and Franco's supporters still have a major say in Spain, while the nazis have lost nearly all of their support in Germany.--Daanschr 13:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Strange is that America is supposed to be christian, while moderacy, making an end to pride and promoting love instead of hatred are the essence of christianity. In Holland we have truckloads full of expressions based on the bible, which could apply to give a good advice, like 'arrogance comes before the downfall' (hoogmoed komt voor de val). I could add some expressions of Nietzsche: 'He who fights monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.' I think this discussion is starting to reach a stalemate, or am i wrong?--Daanschr 13:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a stalemate, exactly. I make logical arguments, and, rather than coming up with logical responses, you just call me a Nazi or Stalinist. I suppose there isn't much point in continuing a debate when you make personal attacks like that. StuRat 18:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is a stalemate. I don't want to continue a debate with a warmongering extremist like you. I am disgusted by the arguments you make. Dehumanizing a whole nation. Not open to any kind of moderacy. A self-righteousness without any barrier. Even claiming that people support you and are your friends, who are disgusted of you. I should leave this discussion because i fear of becoming a monster.--Daanschr 20:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You bandy about racist accusations that medieval Jews poisoned wells to spread the Black Plague and call me that ? But, since I've now disproven all of your points, this would, indeed, be a good time for you to leave. StuRat 21:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Your idea that the Palestinians were stockpiling weapons e 1990s is very similar to my opinion to the medieval idea that Jews were poisining wells and the stalinist idea that Germans were sabotaging fields to reduce the output of grain.--Daanschr 06:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

No, Jews had no reason to poison any wells, as they never wanted to kill off the gentile population of Europe. On the other hand; Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and the other Palestinian terrorist orgs remained dedicated to the death of all Jews in Israel during that time, and have said so publicly. At most, they agreed to something like a "temporary cease fire". Also, the absurdity of saying Jews spread the Black Plague by poisoning water is quite apparent now that we know it isn't a water-borne disease, it's a blood-borne disease spread by fleas on rats. You can't get it by drinking "infected water". Unfortunately, there is nothing absurd about Palestinians stockpiling weapons, as the stockpiles are used against Israeli civilians or uncovered all the time, as in the recent Lebanon crisis. StuRat 06:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

These stockpiles don't exist. I had the impression that Palestinians are using rocks to fight the Israeli soldiers armed with machine guns in an occupied area. If there were stockpiles full of weapons, than the Palestinians would have used machine guns as well. It is America that is giving lots of weapons to the Israelis in order to kill Palestinians. And the stockpiles of weapons are similar to the poisoning of the wells by Jews in the Middle Ages.--Daanschr 19:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

No weapons stockpiles ? Are you insane ? They launch rockets at Israel all the time. Here's an article full of pics of them actually launching rockets at Israel: [1]. StuRat 01:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't care much anymore. I will stay anti-american for the rest of my life, knowing that i am supported by hundreds of millions of other people around the world, far more than there are Americans. Every impopular action that America takes from now on will bring lots of people over the threshhold around the world of becoming anti-american as well. The Dutch right-wingers are about to crack. Which is strange, because the Dutch right-wing used to support America for 60 years without any doubt untill say 2004 or something. I don't know why you want to defend a group this impopular.--Daanschr 19:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by your pro-terrorist attitude considering how soft the Dutch are on terrorism: [2]. I guess it will take a 9-11 or Madrid or London or Bali for you to finally figure out that letting terrorists go will eventually get your own people killed. StuRat 01:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Terrorists fighting a terrorist state on stolen land. Sounds like a blast!

[edit] Point to be adressed on Lewis's response as to "the real reason" (or the doubts of a foreigner)

I have to say there are things on Lewis's response that I did not understand or that I'd like to comprehend better. Well, I'm here to learn, so I am going to ask the questions, no matter how silly they might look.

"Yet the Iraqi experience is proof enough that taking military action against an evil regime (...) is now not only considered a strategic mistake (a position that I disagree with, though still one I can respect,) but actually considered 'morally wrong'." (Lewis)

This sentence actually strikes me as very confusing and ambiguous, but this is probably because I am not a native English speaker!

When you say "a position that I disagree with, though still one I can respect", what is the position you are referring to? Is it the position according to which the military action is a strategic mistake or is it the position according to which the right thing to do is to take military action? To make it clearer: are you saying that "taking military action is a position that I disagree with (because I think it is a strategic mistake), but still one I can respect" or are you saying "considering military action against an evil regime to be a strategic mistake is a position that I can respect, though one I disagree with"? a.z. 23:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I think its the second of your interpretations that is the correct one, but I really can't be sure as now you seem to be confusing me! I guess I should just try and clarify my post.

I was simply separating and drawing a distinction between two completely different anti-Iraq-war positions.

I disagree with both of them, but I can only respect one, and not the other.

The first anti-Iraq war position is the position that military action is NEVER legitimate, no matter the circumstances. This one I completely reject. I consider it to be both ignorant and naive. I believe in the just war philosophy, that being that though war may be a terrible thing, there are certain times when it is necessary to confront evil, even if it requires violence, if it's absolutely necessary for the greater good. The best example would be WWII. If the Allies had been absolutely anti-war and refused to resort to violence to stop Hitler, Hitler would have taken over the world, and succeeded in not only killing 6 million Jews, but in actually exterminating every last one of us, leading to our complete extinction. This form of "ultra-pacificism", that being the opposition to the use of any form of violence under any circumstance, is one that I not only disagree with, but one that I have absolutely no respect for.

The second anti-Iraq war position, the one that I disagree with, yet have complete respect for, is pretty much the position taken by Stu. He apparently agrees with me and believes in the just war principle; that being that as much as we may hate war and violence, as a last resort, when dealing with evil, there are certain situations where war is unfortunately necessary for the greater good. However, he apparently believes that the Iraq war was a strategical error, and he's against it, not because he believes that war is unaceptable under any circumstance, but much more simply because this particular war was a stupid mistake. Of course he agrees that Saddam was evil, he just seems to believe that invading Iraq and removing him was a stupid mistake, because in the larger war on terrorism, it did more harm than good. This is where I disagree with him, while still respecting his views. It all boils down to a very simple and relatively non-contentious disagreement. I personally believe that the Iraq war was a good decision, not only because getting rid of Saddam was a worthwhile cause, but because I truly believe that the war's consequences for the Middle East are positive ones. He disagrees. (Though I don't want to put words in his mouth) it would seem that he basically believes that the Iraq war was a bad decision, not because he's against the idea of confronting evil with force to achieve the better good, but simply because in this case, confronting evil (Saddam) with force was completely unnecessary, and in fact distracted us and weakened our ability to confront much greater evils (Al-Qaeda), and now, the Iranian regime.

Our disagreement has nothing to do with principle and all to do with strategy. We agree on principle (i.e. that it's morally acceptable to confront evil with force), all we seem to disagree on is strategy. I believe that from a strategic standpoint, invading Iraq was a good idea, whereas he believes it was a bad one. I can respect those who disagree with me on strategy. I just can't respect those who disagree on principle.

I just hope I haven't put words in Stu's mouth, but that's at least how I see our disagreement. If I've misunderstood you Stu, please feel free to correct me! Lewis 00:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope I clarified for you what I meant, A.Z.! Lewis 00:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarified it is! Your way of putting it the first time was really confusing to me. I could interpret it in many ways. Well, I read the whole post again and now that I understood the beginning, everything seems to make sense. I think there are no more problems of comprehension and I can actually address the issues themselves now.

But let me just further clarify everything, since you now wrote that your opinion is the second of the two that I wrote. In fact, I did not realize that by saying "strategic mistake" you meant to separate "strategic though not fundamental mistake" from "complete and fundamental grave non-respectable error of principle". So, it's actually none of those two options what you meant. It was really good that I did ask what you meant, or else I would not know by now what it was that you were talking about and we could have continued the discussion actually talking about two different things.a.z. 01:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that it's all a lot clearer now. But what about you? I'm really curious as to your position. Is it mine? Is it Stu's? Even if it's the first one that I said I have no respect for, I respect you, so tell me anyway. Perhaps you may convince me to rethink the whole issue. Lewis 02:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iran and Iraq

Perhaps if Iraq and Afganistan can be stabilized, and stable democracies can be put in its place, then there will be no war with Iran. Stable democracies in the region with citizens who have and understand freedom seems to be the scariest thing possible for the theocratic autocracies in the region.

The U.S. could use over whelming military might to have another three week war, and perhaps, if something was done to Iran like was done to Iraq, there would be another messy reconstruction... but the American people don't want that.

So hopefully, there won't be a war with Iran. Hopefully, they also won't get nuclear weapons so they can't follow through with their promises of the "one bomb solution" to wipe Israel off the map.

Perhaps the best thing the world could do to neutralize the threats of Iran has made is to foster some democracies in the region and collapse the price of oil. If the hysteria the media creates about oil can minimized, then perhaps traders in the futures market won't drive up the price, and these regimes won't have the funds to run their unsustainable governments and funnel money to terrorist groups. If Iraq and Afganistan can be stabilized and they can enter onto the road of becoming as prosperous as post war Germany and Japan have become in the last half century, then oppressed people in theocratic autocracies may see and demand an alternative. --Remi 02:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Lets not forget that Iran had a moderate president for years untill 2005, Khatami. Khatami is conservative, but also peaceful. He was democratically elected in the 1990s. Ahmedinejad is getting more and more unpopular and could very well lose the next elections. If the moderates are voted in again, than the war versus Iran would have been pointless.

Prosperity and democracy doesn't necessarily have to do something with eachother. Senegal and Niger are democracies, but these countries are very poor, with hardly no hope to become as wealthy as Germany and Japan. Singapore and Chile were dictatorships, that became rich nonetheless. Also, China is becoming richer and richer, while having a communistic government.--Daanschr 11:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

There are exceptions, but, in general, democracies are wealthier than dictatorships, because only dictatorships can destroy their economies to the extent of W:Zimbabwe and W:China's W:Great Leap Forward. In democratic governments, anyone who adopted such idiotic policies would be thrown out of office. StuRat 18:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• A functioning democracy requires a strong middle class. That is a sign of wealth. The increase of wealth brought the industrialised nations democracy.--Hillgentleman|Talk 03:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third World War?

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov carried Putin's message to the NATO meeting in Oslo, accusing the Western alliance of 'continuing the search for an enemy' in the post- Cold War era.--Daanschr 11:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The phrasing is inflammatory, but the idea is correct that W:NATO needs to redefine itself and find a new purpose, since the old purpose of preventing an invasion of Europe by W:Warsaw Pact nations, clearly no longer applies. The greatest current military threat appears to be terrorists getting WMD and using them on their enemies, including most of Europe, the US, Russia (over Chechnya), and China (over Uyghur separatist movements). NATO can likely help in some of those cases, as they did in removing al Queda and their Taliban supporters from Afghanistan. StuRat 16:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the main threat to the world is the American attempt to conquer the world. Russia is in favour of maintaining international law, so i support Putin and will vote for an anti-american political party.

There already is a terrorist with WMDs, and that is America. I don't know of any other terrorists, do you?--Daanschr 19:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The chances that the next attack in Holland will come from Muslim terrorists is about 100 times greater than that it will come from the US, so your priorities are seriously misplaced. Has the US ever attacked Holland (other than Nazi occupied Holland in WW2) ? StuRat 02:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice to hear something like this from a 'neutral' source like you. Germany had never atacked Holland before 1940, but that didn't stop them.--Daanschr 07:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

So you don't believe that judging the potential for future actions based on past actions is appropriate ? Based on that, we should let all murderers go, because, just like terrorists, them having murdered people before is no indication that they will continue to do so in the future. StuRat 17:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

In Holland we don't have the death penalty and only a limited amount of life long sentences in jail, which means that nearly all murderers are gone free after a bunch of years in jail. Yet our muder rate is much lower than in the USA. In my socialist view, society should try to make life better for everybody instead of focusing on chasing those who did something wrong. Crimes should be prevented instead of punished. Countries with a socialist system, like Denmark and Sweden are outperforming the USA in nearly every social-economic way, thanks to the socialist discourse.--Daanschr 21:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)--Daanschr 21:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

But the terrorist W:Mohammed Bouyeri got life without parole for the murder of W:Theo van Gogh. I'm glad to see somebody in your country has some common sense. StuRat 05:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Mohamed Bouyeri belongs to the limited group of murderers with a life-long sentence. I don't agree that common sense means doing the same as those who do the worst. That means that society is as bad as a murderer. Why punishing murderers for murder, if society murders as well? That is moral corruption. Instead, it is better to arrange society in such a way that people can live a life of the best quality possible. That is what i call common sense. The main reason for being anti-american for me is to prevent moral corruption from contaminating society. That was my opinion in the 1990s and the rise of neoconservatism in all its pathetic low-level depths has proven my point. Allthough, i am surprised to how low-level America was able to go. I used to be negative about the American politics, economy and society but positive about the American culture. At the moment, i have lost nearly all my sympathy and i don't know if this sympathy can ever return. America stands for an enormous worldwide security hazard to me.--Daanschr 06:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The neo-conservatives are rapidly losing power. They have already lost both houses of Congress, and will lose the Presidency in elections later this year. The new President will either be a Democrat or a moderate Republican. I don't equate executing a murderer with murdering an innocent person. For those countries which decide to ban the death penalty, I'm fine with that, as long as they don't condemn those nations which don't agree. StuRat 02:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that the death penalty is one of the signs wether a country is capable to the kind of crimes that the neoconservatives commited. I don't think that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld will get the death penatly, so why should persons who only were responsible for the murder of a few people instead of nearly a million be convicted to death?--Daanschr 10:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Without commenting on your examples, I feel that "some guilty people go unpunished" isn't a justification for eliminating or reducing the punishments for other guilty people. StuRat 22:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to sound too socialistic, but i have the impression that the dissabled and blacks in the USA are far more punished than those white folks who are responsible for the American policy, despite the fact that they make far more casualties at the expense of the American tax payer. And that while the American poor are not helped at all by society. They are required to pay their taxes and suffer. I am glad i live here!--Daanschr 07:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The US has a W:progressive income tax, meaning lower income people pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes. Those at the bottom incomes don't pay any income taxes due to the personal exemption allowance and deductions for dependents. Poor people do receive substantial free services, as well, such as free education for their children, free food, free housing, and free medical care. So, poor people are net recipients of government money. The W:Americans with Disabilities Act provides for rather substantial protections for the disabled, such as ramp access to buildings and special parking in front. Disabled people may also collect Social Security payments, and, if they were injured on the job, will receive disability compensation, as well. Blacks benefited from W:Affirmative Action programs, such as preferential admission to universities and preferential hiring and promotion policies on the job, although some of those programs are coming to an end now. It is true that the military is disproportionately composed of blacks and Hispanics, but it is an all volunteer military, and nobody needs to join the military to survive in the US, so this is their choice. Many minorities, such as W:Colon Powell, see the military as a route to a promising future. StuRat 15:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

In Europe the social conditions are much better. The USA will reap the consequences in the long run. It will affect the US-economy negatively, and that in a time that huge parts of the third world are becoming as rich as us. Especially the christian fundamentalist movement will have a huge negatively impact on the US-economy.--Daanschr 06:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe the per capita income is higher and tax rate lower in the US than in most European nations (particularly Eastern Europe), leading to more disposable income for most Americans. You also consistently overestimate the power of Christian fundamentalists. They have never been able to get their own candidates (like W:Pat Robertson) elected to much of anything. Some Republicans, like Bush, somewhat sympathize with some of their positions. However, even Bush didn't try to push much of their agenda. For example, had he tried to ban abortion, he would have failed, so he didn't even try. Also note that the former President, Clinton, didn't sympathize with them and the next President, whoever it may be, likely won't, either. So, this perception that the US is controlled by them is just wrong. StuRat 12:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The American foreign policy is the prove of something completely distorted that is in control. I don't know what it is. It is fundamentalistic, but if it aren't the christian fundamentalists, than i still want to put the label fundamentalist and destructive on it.

Economy is more than income. Eastern Europe is a bad argument, because the Eastern Europeans have the inheritance of decades of fanticism behind them. In the USA the fanaticism started only in the 1980s, so we have to wait for another couple of years to see the devistating results of it. Allthough, the effects are already visible.--Daanschr 17:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

But the US economy is also stronger than most Western European economies. Why would that be if the US has been in decline for decades ? StuRat 23:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with you. GDP is about money and money can be manipulated. Several Western European countries have suffered from bad socialism, but they are not trying to implement the anglo-saxon style of economy. The superior kind of economy is the Scandinavian one, combining a free capitalist economy with a large non-overly bureaucratic government. Teachers and docters in Scandinavia get a loan from the government and have self-responsibility. High taxes guarantee the best quality of education and health care, making the Scandinavians superior to all others. France and Germany had too strong bureaucratic states. Trade unions and employees had too much power, thereby suffocating the economy. The solution now is neoliberalism, but that means feasting now and suffering the consequences of bad education later on. America is an extreme example of the last thing. GDP may be the highest in America, but money is only money, what really counts is the ability of the common citizen to be usefull for an employer and society. Something that is excellent in Scandinavia and getting more and more pathetic in the USA. There are leading American thinkers who agree with me: Jeffrey D. Sachs, Noam Chomsky. These two are not negative about the American economy, but very very very negative. Itulip can teach you some things about the American economy and the way people with power and responsibility are ignoring a disastrous outcome. I don't care if Europe is better than America or not. Europe is doing pretty well, but we can do a lot better. The European integration is a painfull progress. That should be the main theme for me. And the world is in chaos thanks to America.--Daanschr 12:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that "the world in in chaos", most of it is quite peaceful at the moment. Those areas that aren't generally have Islamic terrorism/genocide in common. For example, the school bombing by W:Chechens had absolutely nothing to do with the US or US policies, and neither does the genocide in W:Darfur. StuRat 18:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

When i refer to the world in chaos, i mean Putin starting a new cold war, Chavez calling Bush the devil, Bush saying that there is an axis of evil. The words give a forcast of what could be coming next. That is what the header 'third world war' is about. I am having some domestic problems, so the discussion is finished, allthough you could continue it with somebody else.--Daanschr 21:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If a bunch of politicians posturing is the worst thing we have to worry about, I'd be happy with that. I believe both Bush and Putin and due to leave office soon (although who knows if Putin will actually go), so we should hopefully have more reasonable people on both sides soon. Chavez can just be ignored. StuRat 23:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

---

I do agree with the life-long sentence for Bouyeri. Allthough, it also makes me sad that someone can get these kind of fanatic ideas. He is like the RAF-terrorists and the South Moluccans, who commit terrorist atacks at a moment when people believe in them. But in a few decades, muslims will probably lose their tendency to be terrorists and Bouyeri will be the living relic of a deviant past.--Daanschr 06:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See also

• Topic:War