[jdonn]

mike777, on May 19 2006, 05:08 PM, said:

the saint, on May 19 2006, 05:02 PM, said:

Simple fact is this. Lots of people all around the world are still caught up holding historical grudges which in the lightest sense end up as trans-national mockery, in the worst sense as terrorism and genocide.

Nothing will be solved until everyone stops thinking with their knobs and ends all this macho b***ocks. Stick the women in charge. We need to lower the worldwide testosterone levels.

Funny how in the Usa anyway many more Women graduate from College than Men and many more Women vote in elections than men. Are you suggesting since they vote more than men this is all their fault? The Men can claim to be innocent since they Did Nothing!

Funny, every girl I know always says that the man is always to blame for everything.

[pbleighton]

"Ya the article does say because of methodology we cannot conclude if there was an upsurge in violence."

That's the Administration spin contained in the article. The numbers are quite clear, and overwhelming. Here is some spin:

"When the 2004 data was released, Mr. Brennan stated that “the data you will see today represent a break from previous years, and the numbers can’t be compared to previous years in any meaningful way.”
This year, the Administration is again making the same claim. According to the 2005 NCTC report, “the overall data set cannot be meaningfully compared with previous Government efforts to compile terrorist statistics.” State Department spokesman Sean McCormack states: “it’s comparing apples and oranges.”
The Administration appears to apply a different rule, however, when terrorism data shows a decline in terrorist attacks. When the Administration released its first report on terrorism incidents in 2003, it purported to show that terrorism incidents had declined in 2003 compared to prior years. This led Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage to claim the data was “clear evidence that we are prevailing in the fight” against terror."

So numbers using the same methodology are good or bad, according to the Bushies, depending on how they help the Bush Administration case.

I have a pretty good grasp of statistics, and know that you have to look at them carefully. On the other hand, an increase of over 5,000% in the number of terrorist attacks and over 2,000% in the number of deaths in three years is just plain huge.

So now we have the numbers you requested. What do you think caused the upsurge? Do I read your post correctly that you think it was (primarily) the invasion of Iraq? If not, what?

As to what we should do:

The longer we are there, the worse things get, and the lower the U.S. sinks in international public opinion. At this point, our moral leadership is almost zero, and it will take decades of decent behavior to rebuild.

We will be driven out eventually, by our own public opinion if nothing else.

Why wait?

See Vietnam. Can anyone make a serious case that we were right to stay so long, that we shouldn't have left in 1968 (not to mention never going in in the first place)?

We should get out now, and offer substantial continuing nonmilitary aid, conditional on the behavior of the government. After all, we made a huge mess, and have a moral obligation (not to mention practical motivation) to help Iraq rebuild.

This is NOT a good solution. It will not "fix" anything. It is, however, the least bad solution.

Do you have a better one?

Peter

[mike777]

"This is NOT a good solution. It will not "fix" anything. It is, however, the least bad solution.

Do you have a better one?"

My best guess is that the Country is fixated on fighting Last year's war and deeply divided. I am hopeful that what decisions need to be made to lead to a "good" conclusion have been made and Iraq is in a deterministic, good phase. I say this if for no other reason than I am a Contrarian. That means at historic lows or pessimism I buy!

As we waste our talent and energy fighting this Last War we will be engulfed with a far more serious crises.

[pbleighton]

"That means at historic lows or pessimism I buy!"

Like to buy a bridge? I got one that's just right for you, real cheap

Peter

[Robert]

Hi Everyone

Iraq invaded Kuwait and we threw them out(with even some help from assorted Arab nations)

Not too much before that attack, Iraq invaded Iran and fought a war for almost a decade. With a great deal more dead than the number of death in the 2005 count.

I hope that most people remember that Iraq regularly used poison gas in attacks on the Iranian troops.

How we get the blame for Iraq invading two other Arab nations is way past my understanding?

Some of the Arabs are violent no matter what we do. Those 5,000% and 2,000%
jumps in attacks/deaths are because they are attacking and killing their own people. Violence is on the upswing because they are 'killing' their own people.

They are settling some of their old tribal 'problem areas' and making attacks on 'other' religions. Binding the hands behind their backs before torture and some beheadings seems to also be in fashion.

Before we invaded Iraq Saddam was using poison gas and assorted other weapons on his own people.

Some people might want to ignore facts that happened in the pre 21st century,
I cannot ignore the Iran/Iraq War or the Gulf War of 1991. This is a dangerous area with some very dangerous people in it. Americans are getting killed, however, the vast percentage of dead are from the locals killing their own people.

Religious wars have often taken place. The Balkans spring to mind, but that also happened last century.

Who decides what century 'facts' come from? Is this an area where 'unpleasant'
facts are deemed 'unworthy' because they conflict with the 'world view' of some posters?

Regards,
Robert

[luke warm]

mike777, on May 19 2006, 04:29 PM, said:

I assume the stated hypothesis is that there has been an upsurge in worldwide Islamic violence since the invasion of Iraq.

a couple of links were posted showing an upsurge in islamic violence since the invasion of iraq... i agree with everyone that statistics can and often are used to say what someone wants said... i also agree that the way we now measure terrorist attacks differs from the way we did so in the past... i don't agree with the way we used to do it or the way we do it now

the definition of terrorism is usually held to be "The use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

taking that definition as a starting point, robert's post makes sense... sadaam used terrorism on his own people, on the kurds, on the people of kuwait and iran... the victims of this terrorism, as defined above, numbered in the millions... yet it wasn't counted... i wonder how the numbers would look if it was

is there a word that fits this definition? "Defending oneself and others against the use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property ..."

[helene_t]

hrothgar, on May 19 2006, 03:33 PM, said:

I stated that local communities have the right to act in order to protect themselves.

Is this a political or juridical statement?

If it's juridical, it may be significant that Dutch law (French tradition) differs from Californian law (British tradition):

- The "local community" isn't a legal entity that can have rights. If ms. Ali's house were rented, the owner of the house could in theory throw her out, allthough renters' rights are protected very strongly. As it happens, the house is privately owned (AFAIHU), and the local owners' association has no say in this case. Only individual neigbours can ask the court to force her to move, as it happened in this case. For example, if ms Ali were a convicted rapist she might not be allowed to settle within so-and-so-many meters from the house of one of her victims, and if she managed (due to the mistake of a real estate agent or something) to buy a house contrary to such a court decision, she could be forced to move. But this is the only case (well, you may replace "rape" with some other serious offence) I can think of in which people can be forced to give up an owned house (other than their house being expropriated for the construction of a new highway and such). So I wonder what the judge's reason was to force her to move. The mere fact that she's a terrorist target certainly is not sufficient. Maybe the fact that her address is known by some potential murderers due to a mistake by a policeman: it makes some sense that she has to move to a new address that she can mannage to keep secret.

Whatever the motivation for the court's ruling, the minister of justice disagrees with it and will take it to an apeal court. Not sure if this is a political show or a juridical consideration, though.

If your statement is political (what Dutch law should say, rather than what it actually says), then I can't say much more than that I simply disagree (see Eliana's comment).

[pbleighton]

"Who decides what century 'facts' come from? Is this an area where 'unpleasant'
facts are deemed 'unworthy' because they conflict with the 'world view' of some posters?"

Violence is eternal, in all civilizations. You could have quoted a lot of 'unpleasant' facts from the history of Christian civilizations (some quite recent - see Nazi Germany). You chose not to. Why? Does this conflict with your 'world view'?

The issue is that there has been a huge upsurge in terrorist attacks since the invasion of Iraq (see the links provided). Why now? Is it JUST A COINCIDENCE that it happened directly after an event which infuriated the Muslim world? That would be QUITE a coincidence, IMO. The kind of COINCIDENCE imagined by those who find the OBVIOUS conclusion to be in conflict with their 'world view'.

Peter

[cherdano]

helene_t, on May 20 2006, 02:17 PM, said:

Whatever the motivation for the court's ruling, the minister of justice disagrees with it and will take it to an apeal court. Not sure if this is a political show or a juridical consideration, though.

I don't think such a clear distinction exists. Such a ruling will almost always require judgement calls, and often these judgement calls will necessarily contain political judgements.

[mike777]

If I recall my history, and as an American we do not very well, it seems the Netherlands was born out of bloody centuries of Religious wars.

Even as France under went an anticlerical culture around 1870 to 1910 that persists into today the influx of immigrants into that country may soon have more Muslims going to Mosque than Catholics going to Church. I believe part of that anticlerical culture grew out of the Dreyfus affair or simply the Affair.

What was lost at the gates of Vienna may soon be regained.

This wonderful debate we have going on now in the USA over our own history and culture of immigration will only make us much stronger as the passions on the many sides of this issue come out in a full rainbow bloom of freedom. I find it simply amazing how we are renewed constantly by the tired, hunger and poor castoffs of other nations which bubble, toil and trouble us and make us better at the end of the struggle.

Heck has no one noticed how Americans like Tiger Woods took pity on a poor immigrant girl that no one wanted and married her? How about another immigrant by the name of Pamela Anderson another poor immigrant who came to this country with barely enough clothes to cover her back. Thank goodness for us Caring American men. Heck even Cary Grant was an immigrant that American Women took pity on and helped out of the goodness of the heart.

edit:speaking of blowback I knew all this war/blowing up stuff must be our fault, rats....I bet it is the fault of those damn drunken Irish immigrants.

[Gerardo]

Robert, on May 20 2006, 03:55 AM, said:

How we get the blame for Iraq invading two other Arab nations is way past my understanding?

The fact that the US supported Saddam against the perceived more dangerous Khomeini's Iran, and helped him become powerful enough, may be related to this blaming.

Looks like a blowback, much like Osama described above in this thread.

[Robert]

Hi everyone

Violence is eternal. Well written. 100% agreement.

Nazi Germany? I have been a student of military history for almost 50 years now.
WWII Russo German front is my main area of interest, however, I am fairly well versed on the Western front, Italy and Africa. Please feel free to comment on Nazi Germany and do not feel that I will be upset.

It seemed a cheap shot to mention Nazi Germany. I do not suppose that many would be against America helping take down Hitler. I try and avoid straw man ideas.

They are also getting pay back for tribal conflicts dating back hundreds(thousands) of years by killing off each other in Iraq.

If the invasion caused the increase in violent(directed against their own people)why aren't American losses higher?

You mentioned Vietnam. The public seemed to get upset when the losses were some 300-500 per week. Our losses last year were what about 1,000. 20 per week maybe? Our population is much higher now so the losses needed to trigger a
shift may be somewhat higher.

You neglected to respond to my mention of the Iran/Iraq War and the invasion of Kuwait from Iraq. These two invasions cost many more lives than the
'violence' of Iraq against Irag. This area of the world is very violence and the history of the viloence goes back at least to that 732 era that I mentioned.

Did we save South Korea in that police action? Would Kuwait prefer to live under the rule of Saddam or their own rule? Straw man idea, but really do you think we
should have deserted the Koreans?

For the record. I am not a supporter of Bush. I also feel that the war is being run badly. When you gather say a million plus anti war people on the Mall your solution will occur.

At this time, I will not be with you on the mall. My world view does not include deserting allies or nations that we have promised aid to. South Vietnam was promised aid before we left. We cut off their ammo supply, Vietnam fell and we donated the same amount of money $750 million to 'aid' the people of Vietnam.

Best regards,
Robert

[pbleighton]

"It seemed a cheap shot to mention Nazi Germany. I do not suppose that many would be against America helping take down Hitler. I try and avoid straw man ideas."

You misunderstood me completely. You had listed instances of violence by Muslim countries, I gave one by a Christian country (I could have listed a lot more). My point is that if you look at history, Christian countries are every bit as violence-prone as Muslim countries.

"You neglected to respond to my mention of the Iran/Iraq War and the invasion of Kuwait from Iraq. These two invasions cost many more lives than the
'violence' of Iraq against Irag. This area of the world is very violence and the history of the viloence goes back at least to that 732 era that I mentioned."

See above. See European and U.S. history.

BTW, the Reagan administration actively supported Iraq in its attack on Iran.

"When you gather say a million plus anti war people on the Mall your solution will occur. "

Public opinion has changed pretty decisively. While I would love to see large public protests, protests in the voting booth have their effect, too.

Peter

[mike777]

Ms. Ali: "I am ...preparing to leave Holland....But the questions for our society remain. The culture of Islam in our country, the subjugation of women in Islamic culture; the integration of the many Muslims in the West: It is self-deceit to imagine that these issues will disappear."

Government adviser Jan Schoonenboom, Ms Ali is: "Islam bashing".

[Robert]

Hi everyone

We have zero disagreement over violence being widespread over human history.
You stated that the increase in violence in Iraq was a result of the invasion of Iraq.

Hundreds of thousands(millions?) died in the Iraq/Iran war so violence appeared to have dropped sharply after the American invasion of Iraq. At least compared to their earlier level of 'violence.' This recent 'violence' has Iraqs killing Iraqs in very small numbers compared to their fairly recent Iraq/Irqan war.

Still no reply as to why 'if' the American invasion triggered the 'increase' in violence that the Americans losses have not jumped, however, the killing their own people has risen sharply.

What military units/air support did Regan provide Saddam during the Iraq/Iran war? We cut off spare parts shipments. Perhaps you might have noticed that the weapons that we faced in 1991 and Gulf War II were Soviet Bloc weapons. The tank units had tanks starting with T series(T-54, T-72 and some T-80 all Soviet Bloc type tanks) Rifles were AK-47 rather than the American M-14 or M-16 rifles.

If you are talking arms sales 'before' the war, America is one of the top suppliers of arms to the world. If getting American weapons leads to additional invasions, dozens of our Allies fail to respond to that theory 'by invading someone' after getting our weapons. South Korea is very well armed with largely American weapons.

Hitler had zero amounts of American weapons before attacking Poland.
Japan also did not have access to American weapons prior to Pearl Harbor.

Recent American court decision held a pistol manufactoring company 'not'(repeat not) liable because of the use that a person might use the weapon for.

We both agree that the voting booth could have a sharp impact on Congress. Bush is leaving because of term limits.

Best Regards,
Robert

[pbleighton]

"You stated that the increase in violence in Iraq was a result of the invasion of Iraq."

No, I stated that worldwide terrorism increased sharply as a result of the invasion of Iraq, and I backed it up with numbers: A twenty-fold increase in deaths, and a fifty-fold increase in incidents.

"Hundreds of thousands(millions?) died in the Iraq/Iran war so violence appeared to have dropped sharply after the American invasion of Iraq."

As the Iran/Iraq war ended in 1988, and the U.S. invasion of Iraq was in 2003, this statement is nonsensical.

"Still no reply as to why 'if' the American invasion triggered the 'increase' in violence that the Americans losses have not jumped, however, the killing their own people has risen sharply."

To start with, Iraqis were softer targets for the insurgency. At this point, our invasion has triggered a low-level civil war. Saddam Hussein's regime, as terrible as it was, was the only social order Iraq had. We smashed it, and have not been able to put anything functional in its place. This is our responsibilty.

"What military units/air support did Regan provide Saddam during the Iraq/Iran war?"

Our troops didn't fight. We supplied intelligence, economic aid, and weapons.
"Starting in 1982 with Iranian success on the battlefield, the U.S. made its backing of Iraq more pronounced, supplying it with intelligence, economic aid, normalizing relations with the government (broken during the 1967 Six-Day War), and also supplying weapons"
Later we switched sides and supplied Iran:
"the sale of U.S. arms to Iran through Israel began in the summer of 1985, after receiving the approval of President Reagan." [7] These sales included "2,008 TOW missiles and 235 parts kits for Hawk missiles had been sent to Iran via Israel." Further shipments of up to US$2 billion of American weapons from Israel to Iran consisting of 18 F-4 fighter-bombers, 46 Skyhawk fighter-bombers, and nearly 4,000 missiles were folied by the U.S. Department of Justice, and "unverified reports alleged that Israel agreed to sell Iran Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, radar equipment, mortar and machinegun ammunition, field telephones, M-60 tank engines and artillery shells, and spare parts for C-130 transport planes."[8] [9] The London Observer also estimated that Israel's arms sales to Iran during the war totalled US$ 500 million annually [10], and Time Magazine reported that throughout 1981 and 1982, "the Israelis reportedly set up Swiss bank accounts to handle the financial end of the deals."
http://en.wikipedia....i/Iran-Iraq_War
We have blood on our hands in this war.

"We cut off spare parts shipments. Perhaps you might have noticed that the weapons that we faced in 1991 and Gulf War II were Soviet Bloc weapons. The tank units had tanks starting with T series(T-54, T-72 and some T-80 all Soviet Bloc type tanks) Rifles were AK-47 rather than the American M-14 or M-16 rifles."

Yes, the Iraqis had Soviet weapons. I never said they didn't.

"Hitler had zero amounts of American weapons before attacking Poland.
Japan also did not have access to American weapons prior to Pearl Harbor. "

What are you talking about? I never said, or implied, that Nazi deeds had anything to do with the U.S. I gave Nazi Germany as an example of the violence of Christian civilization, and stated that history shows that Christian civilization is every bit as violence-prone as Islamic civilization, a point that you have consistently ignored or misunderstood.

"Without diminishing the horror of either war, Iranian losses in the eight-year Iran-Iraq war appear modest compared with those of the European contestants in the four years of World War I, shedding some light on the limits of the Iranian tolerance for martyrdom. The war claimed at least 300,000 Iranian lives and injured more than 500,000, out of a total population which by the war's end was nearly 60 million. During the Great War, German losses were over 1,700,000 killed and over 4,200,000 wounded [out of a total population of over 65 million]. Germany's losses, relative to total national population, were at least five times higher than Iran. France suffered over 1,300,000 deaths and over 4,200,000 wounded. The percentages of pre-war population killed or wounded were 9% of Germany, 11% of France, and 8% of Great Britain."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/wor...r/iran-iraq.htm


Peter

[hrothgar]

Robert, on May 21 2006, 08:56 AM, said:

What military units/air support did Regan provide Saddam during the Iraq/Iran war? We cut off spare parts shipments. Perhaps you might have noticed that the weapons that we faced in 1991 and Gulf War II were Soviet Bloc weapons. The tank units had tanks starting with T series(T-54, T-72 and some T-80 all Soviet Bloc type tanks) Rifles were AK-47 rather than the American M-14 or M-16 rifles.

The following article has an entire section entitled "U.S.-Iraqi arms transfers in the war"

http://en.wikipedia....i/Iran-Iraq_War

[Robert]

Hi everyone

Hrothgar Thanks for the detailed information about arms transfers. We did supply most of the arms to Iraq(prior to the war) and we did also 'cut off' spare parts when they did not behave.

We did not send military units or air support into the Iraq/Iran war.

Hi phleighton Please consult the above information.

If you want examples of America supporting/provoking war against another country. We firebombed numerous Japanese cities and nuked two of them to show our unhappiness after Pearl Harbor.

Germany faced round the clock bombing from the RAF and America bombers. We firebombed Dresden and Hamburg in addition to bombing numerous cities.

I did not understand(see) your statement about world while terrorism increases being a result of the invasion of Irag. Sorry, my fault.

A Dane newspaper published some offensive cartoons and some Arabs burned an embassy(two?) and the mobs also killed a number of people. Normal reaction to the invasion of Iraq from your viewpoint?

They riot and burn an embassy(two?) as a result of cartoons or was that also the result of the invasion of Iraq?

Nonsensical is how I view many of your claims. You choose to ignore the Iran/Iraq war as 'violence' because it happened 18 years ago. The Iraq invasion took place several years ago, did the terror networks really take several years to get the news?

Now you claim that their own people are being killed because they are 'soft' targerts. The people fighting against enemy occupation could also target their own people, however, they normally tend to kill the invaders.

We are to blame if the people of a nation cannot control their mass killing of their own people. We must be to blame for the Germany concentration camps and the mass killings there if your logic is correct. The largest number of deaths occured after we invaded North Africa in WWII and followed up by invading Italy, France and Germany.

Thanks for confirming that we did not(repeat not) send troops or air support to the Iraq/Iran war. We also cut off spare parts when the war dragged on.

Two Arab nations fight each other and it is our fault. Are we also to blame for the Axis attacks during WWII? Both and the Iraq/Iran happened before the invasion of Iraq.

You still have not anwsered my question about why we should not have allowed the invasions of Korea and Kuwait without intervention? We should have avoided fighting in Vietnam, Korea and Kuwait? How do you pick and choose?

Did someone that you knew die in Vietnam about 1968? It seems a strange date to suggest withdrawing. The Supreme Court ruled that the conflict was a 'war' in 1984 as I recall.

I never wrote that we cut off spare parts on the first day of the Iraq/Iran war.
They were able to re equip their troops with Soviet Bloc weapons by the Gulf War timeframe. An oil rich nation buys(or is given) arms by assorted nations) is a fact of life.

You appear to misunderstand that fact. You blame the violence on the Iraq invasion and choose to ignore the fact that that there have been wars on this planet every year since Christ. If Arabs and non Arabs both choose to fight for thousands of years, why would one invasion suddenly change their behavior?

They are butchering their own people(you say because their own people are 'soft'
targets. This makes no sense to me. I am going to hurt America by killing 12 and wounding 17 in an attack on a local place where the Iraq police hang out(News story in todays MSN headlines)

Thanks for looking up the losses in the Iraq/Iran War. A mere 300,000 dead and you say that violence is increasing because of the tiny fraction killed after the Iraq invasion?

Using your numbers it would seem to sugggest that violence is remarkably lower.

Would Kuwait really be better off with Saddam ruling there?
Would South Korea be better off with the Americans leaving them to their fate in the 50s?
Do you know something about the starvation in North Korea that I do not know?
The South Korean economy seems better than that trainwreck of an economy in North Korea.

Best Regards,
Robert

[pbleighton]

"Hi phleighton Please consult the above information.'

I have already consulted it. In fact I posted it, minutes before Richard did. You seem to have difficulty reading my posts. We actually switched sides for our own purposes (remember the Iran-Contra scandal?).

"A Dane newspaper published some offensive cartoons and some Arabs burned an embassy(two?) and the mobs also killed a number of people. Normal reaction to the invasion of Iraq from your viewpoint?

They riot and burn an embassy(two?) as a result of cartoons or was that also the result of the invasion of Iraq?"

You seem to be delibreately misunderstanding my point. Anti-Western Islamic violence:
1. As a movement, was primarily caused by the conduct of Western powers over the last century. There were, of course, Christian-Islamic violence before this (see the Crusades), but the installation and support of corrupt dictatorships who were (at least perceived as) friendly to the West has made these tensions much worse. The West's robbery of Palestinian lands and subsequent gift of these lands to the Jews, whatever else you may think of it, has undeniably made the situation even worse.
2. Thus, the invasion of Iraq didn't create Western-Islamic tensions. It did, however, make them much worse, as demonstrated by the statistics I quoted.

"You choose to ignore the Iran/Iraq war as 'violence' because it happened 18 years ago"

I don't do so. It is violence. What I said was that the huge spike in worldwide terrorism which started in 2003 wasn't the result of a war which had ended 15 years before, but rather with the invasion of Iraq which took place in 2003.

"We must be to blame for the Germany concentration camps and the mass killings there if your logic is correct."

This is really puzzling. I don't follow you.

"Two Arab nations fight each other and it is our fault."

No, it is our fault for arming first one side, then the other, taking advantage of other nations' misery for our own crude (oil) purposes.

"You still have not anwsered my question about why we should not have allowed the invasions of Korea and Kuwait without intervention? We should have avoided fighting in Vietnam, Korea and Kuwait?"

We should never have been in either of the three, since you ask. I never mentioned Korea or Kuwait. I will answer in detail on Vietnam, which I did bring up. You need to get your history straight. A colony of a Western power (France), which had invaded Vietnam in the first place (should we have stopped that?), was getting kicked out of the country by an insurgency led by Ho Chi Minh. He was enormously popular in the country. Eisenhower refused to get involved, telling those in his administration that if a free election were to be held in Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh would win 80% of the vote. We invaded, and chose to support the losing side in a civil war, due to our stupid and self-destructive obsession with Communism.

"How do you pick and choose?"

We should mind our own business, unless we are DIRECTLY attacked.

"Did someone that you knew die in Vietnam about 1968? It seems a strange date to suggest withdrawing."

I used 1968 because it was the year that it became obvious to the American public that the war was not as advertised. We could have withdrawn then, with the same end result as withdrawing later, except far fewer Vietnamese and Americans would have died. As I said earlier, it would have been much better if we had never invaded Iraq or Vietnam.

"You appear to misunderstand that fact. You blame the violence on the Iraq invasion and choose to ignore the fact that that there have been wars on this planet every year since Christ. "

I balme the upsurge in violence, no the fact that we are a violent species. The fact that violence is eternal doesn't mean that it is random. Worldwide terrorist acts went up by a factor of 50 from 2003 to 2005, and it JUST SO HAPPENED that we invaded Iraq in 2003, infuriating Muslims across the globe. WOW, WHAT A COINCIDENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Thanks for looking up the losses in the Iraq/Iran War. A mere 300,000 dead and you say that violence is increasing because of the tiny fraction killed after the Iraq invasion?"

See above.

"They are butchering their own people(you say because their own people are 'soft'
targets. This makes no sense to me. I am going to hurt America by killing 12 and wounding 17 in an attack on a local place where the Iraq police hang out"

They are doing so in order to drive us out of the country, and because we smashed the social order and let loose a civil war.

"Would Kuwait really be better off with Saddam ruling there?
Would South Korea be better off with the Americans leaving them to their fate in the 50s?
Do you know something about the starvation in North Korea that I do not know?
The South Korean economy seems better than that trainwreck of an economy in North Korea."

We have no idea what Korea would have been like, what direction history would have taken, had Korea turned into a Communist satellite 60 years ago. There is a good argument that confrontation is a gift to unpopular dictatorships (see Castro). Personally, I think that Korea would have wound up currently like eastern Europe (optimistically) or China (pessimistically). The North Korean dictatorship thrives on foreign confrontation. Absent that, the focus would have been on "what have you done for me lately?".

As for Kuwait, if Saddam had overhrown the corrupt Kuwaiti dictatorship and replaced it with his own, it is unclear whether the Kuwaitis would have been much worse off.

I believe that eventually, all countries will be secular, relatively peaceful democracies. However, this won't be hastened by the U.S. thumping its chest and committing mass murder.

All of which is irrelevant to the invasion of Iraq. We were right ot fight Germany and Japan in WWII. This gives no sanction to any other war, nor does an unjust war mean that a just war can never happen.

Peter

[hrothgar]

Robert, on May 21 2006, 09:59 PM, said:

Two Arab nations fight each other and it is our fault.

Iran is about 50% Persian with a substantial number of Azeri.
Arabs comprise well under 5% of the population.