<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Mar 16 2004, 03:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Mar 16 2004, 03:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Worked well for communism, there is a good chance it will work again. Getting others to unite against an idea will eventually kill it.
Hmm.... how long before this one gets locked? It actually had the potential for some interesting discussion... shame <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Gee, your "democracy" must be on the iron lung by now then.
And of course Oil is a factor. Its running out, quickly. Read the peak oil threads. The only reason not to believe it is fear.
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Mar 16 2004, 06:44 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Mar 16 2004, 06:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Good job Spain for screwing everyone else over. If Spain was going to be such a wussy, weak, and worthless ally they should not have came in the first place. Once you commit, you DO NOT BACK DOWN... EVER, esp. when the enemy is attacking you on your HOME TURF!
Man, the lack of logic on Spain's behalf is maddening.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Melatonin already said what had to be said:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->the majority of the population of Spain were opposed to the war, they elected a party who would withdraw their troops. you can argue till your blue in the face about how wrong spain is or whatever, but the people democratically chose to pull out.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Popular Party was already committed, and most likely would of stayed committed. It was the general population that was NOT committed, AND WERE NEVER COMMITTED TO BEGIN WITH.
You're free to enlighten me, but I don't know of any country currently allied with the US in its war on terrorism that contains a <b>majority population</b> that agrees with the US war on terror policy. Britain is supposed to be the strongest ally, look at its population support. Heck, the US is having a hard enough time getting HOME support.
Should similar disasters befall on Britain, would I put my bet that Blair's government would still be in power?
<!--QuoteBegin-Confuzor+Mar 17 2004, 02:48 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Confuzor @ Mar 17 2004, 02:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The majority of the population of Spain were opposed to the war, they elected a party who would withdraw their troops. you can argue till your blue in the face about how wrong spain is or whatever, but the people democratically chose to pull out. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Forlorn didn't argue this. The whole point of the attack was to <b>further</b> weaken support for coalition forces. And it did exactly that. Al Queda wants America out of Iraq and they will do whatever it takes to do that. The objective of terrorism isn't to directly take over or overthrow a government, but to get publicity and weaken whatever resolve remains. Let's be honest, 100, 200, even 300 dead people isn't that much. Many more people die <b>everyday</b> of natural causes in Spain. That doesn't make it any less of a tragedy, but the <b>real setback</b> for Spain will be the emotions of the people. (infrastructure aside)
Make no mistake: if the US pulls out now there will be a power vacuum in Iraq that will leave many more civilians dead in its wake than the odd terrorist bombing ever will. The spanish citizens are wrong to pull out, and are playing right into Al Queda's hands. That is what Forlorn is arguing, and arguing correctly.
<!--QuoteBegin-xect+Mar 16 2004, 04:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (xect @ Mar 16 2004, 04:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->9/11: America is attacked. America fights back
3/11: Spain is attacked. Spain retreats into it's own borders<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
9/11: America is attacked by nation-less terrorists organisations. America bombs Afghanistan to a state that will take many years to rebuild, killing thousands of innocents who never did anything to deserve it.
3/11: Spain is attacked. Spain lets democracy (you know, the kind of democracy you are supposedly trying to insert into the middle east, right?) rule, and follows the people's opinion, ceasing hostilities.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Which was talking about about the idea before America actually invaded any other countries, the terrorists clearly attacked us first.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ya', except for all the wars that you indirectly participated in. Israel, the gulf war and so on.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->OH, and weapons were sent to Iserail long after they were attacked by other Arab nations so they could defend themselves.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Right now it seems the Israeli are using these weapons to kill and dominate the Palestinians.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A terrorist could be anyone. The fact they are mostly eastern and muslim is mostly just coincindence, but no where does it mean you should kill all of one type of group.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah, but as long as you keep bombing the crap out of the middle east, people will keep signing up for terrorist causes. The only way you can make sure that the middle eastern terrorist organizations stop recruiting big-scale, provided you want to do it the bloody way, is to kill them all.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(problably just to get people like me riled up), then why would we bother rebuilding not one, but two countries in the middle east?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Dominate seems more like the word. I seem to remember someone refusing stubbornly to let the U.N. take charge, while walking down the streets of Baghdad with bullet-proof armors, loaded rifles and superior attitudes.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No, get the damn war over with and move on. The faster the better. It does not involve killing everyone, it only invovles killing who are in the way and moving forward.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah, but if "who are in the way" includes potential terrorists, there won't be a lot of people left.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ah, Oil managed to get in this topic!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Agree with you there, oil seems like a really weird reason to go to war.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The idea is that you take away people who support the Terrorists and get others to make sure they do not side with them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Again, kill them all. Because killing only some will just make the terrorism snowball. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ahhhh how does xect make the quote then answer them seperate... anyway.
America attacked terrorist holding in Afghanistan and the Taliban party that was in power at the time(the party supporting and hiding the terrorists, the party that refused to hand them over, that party that executes people who break their laws no questions asked with some of their laws being that women can't do anything pretty much.
From the CIA world factbook, this is strictly facts and forgets several points like how almost every single one of Israel's neighbors attacked it in 1967 and Israel defeated them. They then gave back much of the land they had seized. <i>Following World War II, the British withdrew from their mandate of Palestine, and the UN partitioned the area into Arab and Jewish states, an arrangement rejected by the Arabs. Subsequently, the Israelis defeated the Arabs in a series of wars without ending the deep tensions between the two sides. The territories occupied by Israel since the 1967 war are not included in the Israel country profile, unless otherwise noted. On 25 April 1982, Israel withdrew from the Sinai pursuant to the 1979 Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty. Outstanding territorial and other disputes with Jordan were resolved in the 26 October 1994 Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace. In addition, on 25 May 2000, Israel withdrew unilaterally from southern Lebanon, which it had occupied since 1982. In keeping with the framework established at the Madrid Conference in October 1991, bilateral negotiations were conducted between Israel and Palestinian representatives (from the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip) and Syria to achieve a permanent settlement. But progress toward a permanent status agreement has been undermined by the outbreak of Palestinian-Israeli violence since September 2000. </i>
You seem to think that we are bombing innocent people. Civilian casualties of war are an unfortunate, but unavoidable, fact. Despite all our efforts the fact is that if using explosive munitions to eliminate enemy strongholds and leaders in order to avoid sending ground troops into danger and letting the target escape, civilians will be killed; be it by the blast or shrapnel. If you have ever played paintball or seen how easily a bullet pentrates walls you should know that stray bullets will end up somehwere, all too often in a bystander's back. In WW2 civilian casualties outnumbered military casualties by a huge percentage via the holocaust, the bombing of London, and of course the nuclear bombing of both Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Luckily today advanced weaponry (and the Geneva convention guidelines) can keep civilian casualties to relative historical low.
The war on Afghanistan's purpose was to a) kill the terrorist's ringleaders b) destroy terrorist infrastructure (I.E. funds, hideouts, training camps, meeting centers, etc) and when the Taliban showed they had no intention of being cooperative C) eliminating parties or factions supporting terrorist organizations.
Now the Iraq war is a different issue entirely. I beleive that at the time George W. Bush, the CIA, Tony Blair, and the other nations involved such as Spain and Italy truly beleived there were WOMD. Although we cannot be 100% sure, it is more than likely that at this point if WOMD were not found and noone has stepped up to claim that there were (although it could be that all the researchers of a potential WOMD plan were entirely devoted to the Baath party it is highly doubtful that not one has stepped forward, unless thay were all killed like those poor souls whose bones were found in a wearhouse, again it seems unlikely that none would escape and come forward) that there were in fact, no WOMD. So I agree with you somewhat here, the Iraq war did not have enough supporting evidence and Iraq did not pose enough of a threat to justify the war; this does not mean that positive things cannot come from the war as well as the bad even though the oriinal purpose of the war was not completed.
Killing terrorists is a paradox. On the one hand, destroying current infrastructures and killing ringleaders will both hamper the terrorist's ability to plan and carry out strikes and intimidate others into not joining; it could also exacerbate the problem by inflaming terrorists already positioned into commiting random small scale attacks like the anthrax letters and cause more people willing to join up and kill those they see as invaders into their land.
<!--QuoteBegin-ElectricSheep+Mar 17 2004, 05:31 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (ElectricSheep @ Mar 17 2004, 05:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Killing terrorists is a paradox. On the one hand, destroying current infrastructures and killing ringleaders will both hamper the terrorist's ability to plan and carry out strikes and intimidate others into not joining; it could also exacerbate the problem by inflaming terrorists already positioned into commiting random small scale attacks like the anthrax letters and cause more people willing to join up and kill those they see as invaders into their land. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ahh the great catch-22 eh Electric? Very good post. However I don't think the dilemma really has only 2 options: Kill terrorists or do nothing. I made an earlier post in a previous thread that perhaps the best course of action isn't to kill terrorist, but to destroy dictatorships. Despite Israel, it is largely the propaganda of countries like Syria, Iran, and Saudi that have brainwashed their civilians into doing three things:
1. Killing innocent Israelis (non-military targets) 2. Killing themselves in the process 3. Going to heaven in the process
To convince someone of all three things takes an enormous amount of media screening and propaganda that only dictatorship regimes are capable of. Blaming Israel for Palestinian poverty, rather than oppressive regimes, is a classic Orwellian tactic that is working wonders for the despots. Democracies can produce terrorists, but dictatorships can produce many, many more. The terrorists that are killing Iraqis are trying to undermine the democratic process. They are very aware that democracies are not good breeding grounds for propaganda, and thus terrorists.
<!--QuoteBegin-killswitch1968+Mar 17 2004, 01:40 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (killswitch1968 @ Mar 17 2004, 01:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Confuzor+Mar 17 2004, 02:48 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Confuzor @ Mar 17 2004, 02:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The majority of the population of Spain were opposed to the war, they elected a party who would withdraw their troops. you can argue till your blue in the face about how wrong spain is or whatever, but the people democratically chose to pull out. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Forlorn didn't argue this. The whole point of the attack was to <b>further</b> weaken support for coalition forces. And it did exactly that. Al Queda wants America out of Iraq and they will do whatever it takes to do that. The objective of terrorism isn't to directly take over or overthrow a government, but to get publicity and weaken whatever resolve remains. Let's be honest, 100, 200, even 300 dead people isn't that much. Many more people die <b>everyday</b> of natural causes in Spain. That doesn't make it any less of a tragedy, but the <b>real setback</b> for Spain will be the emotions of the people. (infrastructure aside)
Make no mistake: if the US pulls out now there will be a power vacuum in Iraq that will leave many more civilians dead in its wake than the odd terrorist bombing ever will. The spanish citizens are wrong to pull out, and are playing right into Al Queda's hands. That is what Forlorn is arguing, and arguing correctly. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> you seem to be very well informed as to the suspected terrorists motives. you dont have any 'connections' youd like to share?
perhaps the terrorists motive was to try and galvanise the spanish population in a similar manner to what occured following the 9/11 attacks. "but why would the terrorists want to create an enemy who would try to hurt them?!" i hear you ask. well, If by hurt them, you mean simoultaniously cut civil liberties at home under the guise of protectionism, whilst attacking random middle eastern countries who have little to no link to said terrorists (ie. increasing the numbers of people with a grudge against the west) I guess you might have a point.
Perhaps this attack backfired, and instead of blindly seeking revenge, the Spanish people were smart enough to see through it.
<!--QuoteBegin-Melatonin+Mar 17 2004, 12:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Melatonin @ Mar 17 2004, 12:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> perhaps the terrorists motive was to try and galvanise the spanish population in a similar manner to what occured following the 9/11 attacks. "but why would the terrorists want to create an enemy who would try to hurt them?!" i hear you ask. well, If by hurt them, you mean simoultaniously cut civil liberties at home under the guise of protectionism, whilst attacking random middle eastern countries who have little to no link to said terrorists (ie. increasing the numbers of people with a grudge against the west) I guess you might have a point.
Perhaps this attack backfired, and instead of blindly seeking revenge, the Spanish people were smart enough to see through it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Melatonin you are being silly. I argued what the terrorists motives are. You made no counter-argument save "oh well what are your connections?" Argue the argument not the person.
This is your "reasoning", expressed enigmatically: The bombings in Spain were to incite Spanish citizens to rally against terrorism, which would cause them to blindly attack Middle Eastern countries, which would cause civil unrest, which would cause terrorism to increase, and therefore Al Queda grows stronger.
Absolute rubbish. This is a slippery slope fallacy. Spain is in Iraq to stabilize the country, and they have shown no indication they are going to go on a "Spanish rampage" attacking Islamic states willy-nilly. Iraq is of utmost importance. If Iraq can not get a stable democracy, Al Queda wins. Democracies are the greatest threat to Al Queda and the propaganda of these dictatorships, as I made in an earlier post.
actually my point was, you have no real insight. your assuming what the terrorists wanted to achive, and since you're assuming the motives of people we dont even know commited this act for sure, why shouldnt I?
anyway.
Spain isnt in Iraq to stablaise anything, stop pushing your naivity down other peoples throats. This isnt about right and wrong, good or evil, its about the benjamins and the oil.
Forlorn, xect, CWAG, you are all within an inch of a restricted membership. For the last damn time, read the rules, adhere to them, or stay out of here. D posed a number of very interesting questions (which I'm going to repost), Handman, Melatonin & co. did their best trying to respond to them, and all you could think of was calling each others sides cowards, Stalinists, and Nazis, insults that make me contemplate suspensions.
Comments
Worked well for communism, there is a good chance it will work again. Getting others to unite against an idea will eventually kill it.
Hmm.... how long before this one gets locked? It actually had the potential for some interesting discussion... shame <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gee, your "democracy" must be on the iron lung by now then.
And of course Oil is a factor. Its running out, quickly. Read the peak oil threads. The only reason not to believe it is fear.
Man, the lack of logic on Spain's behalf is maddening.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Melatonin already said what had to be said:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->the majority of the population of Spain were opposed to the war, they elected a party who would withdraw their troops.
you can argue till your blue in the face about how wrong spain is or whatever, but the people democratically chose to pull out.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Popular Party was already committed, and most likely would of stayed committed. It was the general population that was NOT committed, AND WERE NEVER COMMITTED TO BEGIN WITH.
You're free to enlighten me, but I don't know of any country currently allied with the US in its war on terrorism that contains a <b>majority population</b> that agrees with the US war on terror policy. Britain is supposed to be the strongest ally, look at its population support. Heck, the US is having a hard enough time getting HOME support.
Should similar disasters befall on Britain, would I put my bet that Blair's government would still be in power?
No.
you can argue till your blue in the face about how wrong spain is or whatever, but the people democratically chose to pull out. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Forlorn didn't argue this. The whole point of the attack was to <b>further</b> weaken support for coalition forces. And it did exactly that. Al Queda wants America out of Iraq and they will do whatever it takes to do that.
The objective of terrorism isn't to directly take over or overthrow a government, but to get publicity and weaken whatever resolve remains. Let's be honest, 100, 200, even 300 dead people isn't that much. Many more people die <b>everyday</b> of natural causes in Spain. That doesn't make it any less of a tragedy, but the <b>real setback</b> for Spain will be the emotions of the people. (infrastructure aside)
Make no mistake: if the US pulls out now there will be a power vacuum in Iraq that will leave many more civilians dead in its wake than the odd terrorist bombing ever will. The spanish citizens are wrong to pull out, and are playing right into Al Queda's hands. That is what Forlorn is arguing, and arguing correctly.
I'll respond if I see a good point, but otherwise I'll let my oppinion stated on the first page stand strong.
3/11: Spain is attacked. Spain retreats into it's own borders<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
9/11: America is attacked by nation-less terrorists organisations. America bombs Afghanistan to a state that will take many years to rebuild, killing thousands of innocents who never did anything to deserve it.
3/11: Spain is attacked. Spain lets democracy (you know, the kind of democracy you are supposedly trying to insert into the middle east, right?) rule, and follows the people's opinion, ceasing hostilities.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Which was talking about about the idea before America actually invaded any other countries, the terrorists clearly attacked us first.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ya', except for all the wars that you indirectly participated in. Israel, the gulf war and so on.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->OH, and weapons were sent to Iserail long after they were attacked by other Arab nations so they could defend themselves.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right now it seems the Israeli are using these weapons to kill and dominate the Palestinians.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A terrorist could be anyone. The fact they are mostly eastern and muslim is mostly just coincindence, but no where does it mean you should kill all of one type of group.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, but as long as you keep bombing the crap out of the middle east, people will keep signing up for terrorist causes. The only way you can make sure that the middle eastern terrorist organizations stop recruiting big-scale, provided you want to do it the bloody way, is to kill them all.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(problably just to get people like me riled up), then why would we bother rebuilding not one, but two countries in the middle east?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dominate seems more like the word. I seem to remember someone refusing stubbornly to let the U.N. take charge, while walking down the streets of Baghdad with bullet-proof armors, loaded rifles and superior attitudes.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No, get the damn war over with and move on. The faster the better. It does not involve killing everyone, it only invovles killing who are in the way and moving forward.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, but if "who are in the way" includes potential terrorists, there won't be a lot of people left.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ah, Oil managed to get in this topic!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agree with you there, oil seems like a really weird reason to go to war.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The idea is that you take away people who support the Terrorists and get others to make sure they do not side with them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, kill them all. Because killing only some will just make the terrorism snowball. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ahhhh how does xect make the quote then answer them seperate... anyway.
America attacked terrorist holding in Afghanistan and the Taliban party that was in power at the time(the party supporting and hiding the terrorists, the party that refused to hand them over, that party that executes people who break their laws no questions asked with some of their laws being that women can't do anything pretty much.
From the CIA world factbook, this is strictly facts and forgets several points like how almost every single one of Israel's neighbors attacked it in 1967 and Israel defeated them. They then gave back much of the land they had seized.
<i>Following World War II, the British withdrew from their mandate of Palestine, and the UN partitioned the area into Arab and Jewish states, an arrangement rejected by the Arabs. Subsequently, the Israelis defeated the Arabs in a series of wars without ending the deep tensions between the two sides. The territories occupied by Israel since the 1967 war are not included in the Israel country profile, unless otherwise noted. On 25 April 1982, Israel withdrew from the Sinai pursuant to the 1979 Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty. Outstanding territorial and other disputes with Jordan were resolved in the 26 October 1994 Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace. In addition, on 25 May 2000, Israel withdrew unilaterally from southern Lebanon, which it had occupied since 1982. In keeping with the framework established at the Madrid Conference in October 1991, bilateral negotiations were conducted between Israel and Palestinian representatives (from the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip) and Syria to achieve a permanent settlement. But progress toward a permanent status agreement has been undermined by the outbreak of Palestinian-Israeli violence since September 2000. </i>
You seem to think that we are bombing innocent people. Civilian casualties of war are an unfortunate, but unavoidable, fact. Despite all our efforts the fact is that if using explosive munitions to eliminate enemy strongholds and leaders in order to avoid sending ground troops into danger and letting the target escape, civilians will be killed; be it by the blast or shrapnel. If you have ever played paintball or seen how easily a bullet pentrates walls you should know that stray bullets will end up somehwere, all too often in a bystander's back. In WW2 civilian casualties outnumbered military casualties by a huge percentage via the holocaust, the bombing of London, and of course the nuclear bombing of both Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Luckily today advanced weaponry (and the Geneva convention guidelines) can keep civilian casualties to relative historical low.
The war on Afghanistan's purpose was to a) kill the terrorist's ringleaders b) destroy terrorist infrastructure (I.E. funds, hideouts, training camps, meeting centers, etc) and when the Taliban showed they had no intention of being cooperative C) eliminating parties or factions supporting terrorist organizations.
Now the Iraq war is a different issue entirely. I beleive that at the time George W. Bush, the CIA, Tony Blair, and the other nations involved such as Spain and Italy truly beleived there were WOMD. Although we cannot be 100% sure, it is more than likely that at this point if WOMD were not found and noone has stepped up to claim that there were (although it could be that all the researchers of a potential WOMD plan were entirely devoted to the Baath party it is highly doubtful that not one has stepped forward, unless thay were all killed like those poor souls whose bones were found in a wearhouse, again it seems unlikely that none would escape and come forward) that there were in fact, no WOMD. So I agree with you somewhat here, the Iraq war did not have enough supporting evidence and Iraq did not pose enough of a threat to justify the war; this does not mean that positive things cannot come from the war as well as the bad even though the oriinal purpose of the war was not completed.
Killing terrorists is a paradox. On the one hand, destroying current infrastructures and killing ringleaders will both hamper the terrorist's ability to plan and carry out strikes and intimidate others into not joining; it could also exacerbate the problem by inflaming terrorists already positioned into commiting random small scale attacks like the anthrax letters and cause more people willing to join up and kill those they see as invaders into their land.
Ahh the great catch-22 eh Electric? Very good post.
However I don't think the dilemma really has only 2 options: Kill terrorists or do nothing.
I made an earlier post in a previous thread that perhaps the best course of action isn't to kill terrorist, but to destroy dictatorships. Despite Israel, it is largely the propaganda of countries like Syria, Iran, and Saudi that have brainwashed their civilians into doing three things:
1. Killing innocent Israelis (non-military targets)
2. Killing themselves in the process
3. Going to heaven in the process
To convince someone of all three things takes an enormous amount of media screening and propaganda that only dictatorship regimes are capable of. Blaming Israel for Palestinian poverty, rather than oppressive regimes, is a classic Orwellian tactic that is working wonders for the despots.
Democracies can produce terrorists, but dictatorships can produce many, many more.
The terrorists that are killing Iraqis are trying to undermine the democratic process. They are very aware that democracies are not good breeding grounds for propaganda, and thus terrorists.
you can argue till your blue in the face about how wrong spain is or whatever, but the people democratically chose to pull out. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Forlorn didn't argue this. The whole point of the attack was to <b>further</b> weaken support for coalition forces. And it did exactly that. Al Queda wants America out of Iraq and they will do whatever it takes to do that.
The objective of terrorism isn't to directly take over or overthrow a government, but to get publicity and weaken whatever resolve remains. Let's be honest, 100, 200, even 300 dead people isn't that much. Many more people die <b>everyday</b> of natural causes in Spain. That doesn't make it any less of a tragedy, but the <b>real setback</b> for Spain will be the emotions of the people. (infrastructure aside)
Make no mistake: if the US pulls out now there will be a power vacuum in Iraq that will leave many more civilians dead in its wake than the odd terrorist bombing ever will. The spanish citizens are wrong to pull out, and are playing right into Al Queda's hands. That is what Forlorn is arguing, and arguing correctly. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
you seem to be very well informed as to the suspected terrorists motives.
you dont have any 'connections' youd like to share?
perhaps the terrorists motive was to try and galvanise the spanish population in a similar manner to what occured following the 9/11 attacks.
"but why would the terrorists want to create an enemy who would try to hurt them?!" i hear you ask.
well, If by hurt them, you mean simoultaniously cut civil liberties at home under the guise of protectionism, whilst attacking random middle eastern countries who have little to no link to said terrorists (ie. increasing the numbers of people with a grudge against the west) I guess you might have a point.
Perhaps this attack backfired, and instead of blindly seeking revenge, the Spanish people were smart enough to see through it.
but then, who knows.
"but why would the terrorists want to create an enemy who would try to hurt them?!" i hear you ask.
well, If by hurt them, you mean simoultaniously cut civil liberties at home under the guise of protectionism, whilst attacking random middle eastern countries who have little to no link to said terrorists (ie. increasing the numbers of people with a grudge against the west) I guess you might have a point.
Perhaps this attack backfired, and instead of blindly seeking revenge, the Spanish people were smart enough to see through it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Melatonin you are being silly. I argued what the terrorists motives are. You made no counter-argument save "oh well what are your connections?" Argue the argument not the person.
This is your "reasoning", expressed enigmatically:
The bombings in Spain were to incite Spanish citizens to rally against terrorism, which would cause them to blindly attack Middle Eastern countries, which would cause civil unrest, which would cause terrorism to increase, and therefore Al Queda grows stronger.
Absolute rubbish. This is a slippery slope fallacy. Spain is in Iraq to stabilize the country, and they have shown no indication they are going to go on a "Spanish rampage" attacking Islamic states willy-nilly. Iraq is of utmost importance. If Iraq can not get a stable democracy, Al Queda wins. Democracies are the greatest threat to Al Queda and the propaganda of these dictatorships, as I made in an earlier post.
I guess we'll have to see.
your assuming what the terrorists wanted to achive, and since you're assuming the motives of people we dont even know commited this act for sure, why shouldnt I?
anyway.
Spain isnt in Iraq to stablaise anything, stop pushing your naivity down other peoples throats.
This isnt about right and wrong, good or evil, its about the benjamins and the oil.
Forlorn, xect, CWAG, you are all within an inch of a restricted membership. For the last damn time, read the rules, adhere to them, or stay out of here.
D posed a number of very interesting questions (which I'm going to repost), Handman, Melatonin & co. did their best trying to respond to them, and all you could think of was calling each others sides cowards, Stalinists, and Nazis, insults that make me contemplate suspensions.
<span style='color:red'>***Locked.***</span>