If the Iraqi military wasn't killing their own people, there wouldn't have been a no fly zone. In any case, there was a cease fire, not an end to the war, so if you want to be technical, the US was free to do whatever it liked.
I wasn't talking about countries. These terrorists are killing more Afghanis and Iraqis than they are Americans.
Then why are those people resisting that theocracy?
Iraq is just a side show, and a recent one at that. Terrorists have been killing people for at least the last 40 years, invading army or not. It's been unnecessary and unproductive.
Sure, they have enough support to mount a terrorism campaign, but no more than that. They produce nothing, and help no one. Not even themselves.

And what were their goals before 2003? I doubt they know.

I don't want to make this about Iraq. Clearly that was a huge blunder, but it's still just a side show to the real war.

The Quran doesn't mention 72 virgins. What the actual Quran says is translated roughly as "Verily, for the Muttaqun [righteous], there will be a success (paradise); gardens and grapeyards; and young full-breasted (mature) maidens of equal age; and a full cup (of wine)" That's in An-Naba 78:31-34.

To find mention of 72 of something (not virgins), you have to look in the hadith. Hadith number 2,562 in the Sunan al-Tirmidhi can be translated something like, "The least [reward] for the people of Heaven is 80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome of pearls, aquamarine and ruby."

The hadith are traditional sayings that some people trace to Mohammed, but they are not considered to be as reliable as the Quran.

Trevor

And Iraq was free to defend herself.

And they're there because the US is there.
Do we know that the majority of them are?

Agreed. The same can be said for pretty much every act of violent aggression for even longer. Small minds create big wars.
I'm not a local in the sandbox, so I won't claim to know just how much support they have from the locals. I do know that without a significant amount of local support they would be completely ineffective. We're discussing them halfway around the globe, so they're doing something right from a tactical perspective.

Peaceful life with the family? What are most young adults' goals before they find themselves defending their lives, families, homes, cities and neighbors? Hopefully you and I will never know what it's like for someone to come along and instigate a civil war in our own country. However, we can't really understand their perspective until we at least understand that that is their perspective.

They can't very well take on the world's best budgeted military (by a large, large, large margin) in head to head, toe to toe battle. Nor would any competent military leader lead them into such. They fight the way they can with the resources they have. Apparently their military leaders feel that attacking locals who cooperate with Americans is an effective strategy.

They'll keep it up until the US leaves. They're soldiers, just like our guys, only without the budget and the luxury that goes with it.

What is the "real" war? Anyone who decides the US is the enemy (or decides to trade oil in Euros instead of dollars) is a terrorist or a member of the "Axis of Evil." Anywhere the US sends troops will end up being a huge "terrorist training camp," just like Iraq, because anyone resisting will be labeled a terrorist. It's easier to demonize them if we don't have to think of them as soldiers who have families back home that love them and miss them, but are proud that they would fight a much larger and better equipped army in defense of their homeland.

Remember, US soldiers have not always had uniform uniforms and a single central command. US soldiers have also relied on guerilla tactics. Their budget was limited, but they were still soldiers.

Interesting. Thank you.

Agreed. Let’s not make it about Iraq, nor the policy of single countries or regimes -- Western or non-Western. Because that is likely to overheat this thread in a hurry, and that will definitely make it history.

-- ArcticStones

A few thoughts come to mind. Costa Rica is a country not much in the news because there is hardly any trouble there -- at least not compared to their neighbours. Interestingly, Costa Rica has no military! In fact it was the first country in the world to constitutionally abolish its army.

The current President of Costa Rica is Óscar Arias, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1987 for his efforts to bring more peace to the region. It is worth noting that the constitutional provision limiting the president to one term was changed due to popular demand. Mr Arias was reelected in 2006.


I have often thought about the following: The list of permanent members of the UN Security Council is virtually identical to the list of the world’s arms exporters:

The USA
Russia
China
France
The United Kingdom

Consider how the work of the United Nations might be different if no arms exporters could take a seat in the Security Council, or even that only avowed non-militaristic countries were allowed represented there. (That would, by the way, exclude Norway, which is also a major arms exporter.)

Would not the United Nations find it easier to contribute to world peace, and regional peace, if it was easier to ignore the "legitimate interests" of the superpowers/major powers/major arms exporters?

In other words USA, Russia, China, France and the UK might be replaced by -- Iceland, Costa Rica, Botswana, perhaps Bhutan and the Vatican.


It’s a nice dream! :)


With best regards,
ArcticStones

on that note... I dont see any reason why there shouldn't be a world wide ban of guns... and explosives... (except the military)

Really.... WHO needs a gun.. or explosives? unless you want to kill someone?..

I bet it would save a lot of lives!


and isn't it odd that the UK export a lot of guns... but you would struggle to get one in the UK (thanks god)... not like America where they give them away as incentives to open a bank account!

Yes, with the full knowledge that firing on US planes might bring a full scale invasion at any time.
They were killing people in soccer stadiums in Afghanistan long before the US arrived.

As I said, they do have some support, and as you have said, terrorism is the only thing that support can sustain, so it can't be very great.

If that were true, we wouldn't be in Afghanistan.

They wouldn't need to if they truly had the support of the people. Even in Iraq, the majority of people don't ask for the US to leave, even though they don't like having us there.

They're thugs who kill women and children for not believing in the Quran in the exact same way that they do. They're most angry because they get no respect, yet they deserve none.

The US has troops in much of Europe, parts of Asia, and other countries in the Middle East. None of them have been labeled terrorists. It's easy to demonize people who act like demons. People who travel to a foreign country like Afghanistan to fight the US for trying to improve the lives of people in that country are acting like demons.

US guerilla tactics never included murdering innocent civilians.

Somehow, for example, Mustafa Kemal, Ataturk managed to organize and secularize Turkey which does not take part in the Jihad. Turkey has it's problems, but rampant extremism doesn't seem to be one of them.

Please...!
 

.
Please step back from this duel on Iraq!
Appropriate PM notifications have been sent.

See also my Post 45.

Would it be ironic that we are trying to discuss ways to create a peaceful society and people are already arguing with each other?

My other question is this: how does one make the populace ready to accept a message of peace? It's not enough to have a peaceful leader, as was mentioned before. The people need to be ready to hear the message.

As an example, Ghandi's drive for non-violent protest was greatly enhanced by the non-violent Hindu tradition (at least Hindu has precedent for non-violence) But there are nations that lack this kind of precedence, how do you infuse it into a society, that's the question.

But we're not trying to kill each other. ;) Debate is a good thing. It's how we arrive at consensus.

Interesting article, I wonder how true it really is. I know that we have always had a biological warfare department even though we tend to not talk about and deny its existence at times. A friend of mine, his father has worked for various government agencies, and he is a bio chemist. The things he would talk about were pretty scary.

I recently read how staph infections are up like 500% (just pulled that number out of my head, but they are up) because of how much the staph and staph-like bacteria are spreading so rapidly.

then comes in the human factor. I am actually reading the Quran right now as we speak. Really it preaches peace more than anything and a lot of it can be paralleled to christianity. The problem is, that people exploit and interpret certain parts in a way that differ from others, and they use that to exploit people's minds. This is done through every and all religions, it's nothing new.

Now factor in economy, capital, money, and power, because all of these things tend to go hand in hand. War has always been fought over something other than religion, be it land, resources, whatever. Religion has just been a tool to motivate the masses to the cause.

We need to stop becoming consumers, and always wanting what we don't need to survive. If everyone stopped consuming as much gas as we did on a daily basis would the world be a better place? When was the last time you walked to the store? When was the last time you walked to do anything? When was the last time you were like, I don't really need to buy this so I won't. I still don't own a large, or even HD TV. I don't have cable TV. In fact I don't even watch TV. My TV plays movies and video games that is it. I have blockbuster online and I use that. If I have to watch something on TV I just go to my neighbors house who has all the channels.

Regardless though, human beings are just flawed, and I have accepted that. Terrorism is nothing new, and it is definitely not new to the US either.

Not arguing, discussing! :-) I've actually been impressed that the discussion has remained civil.

I'm not sure it's possible to actively accomplish this. Often it's little things that snowball, resulting in huge effects, far beyond anything intended by the initial action. In Chaos Theory, this is often referred to as the butterfly effect.

Yes. The decrease in pollution would be worth it.

I walk to the store once or twice each day. I walk most places. I put so few miles on my vehicle lately that my insurance costs me about $.75 per mile, maybe more, with relatively inexpensive premiums. I've driven significantly less in the past eight months than I used to drive per week.

Of course, I don't walk for altruistic reasons. I just prefer not to drive when it's not necessary.

Yeah I live in the city so I can walk most places, and do so when its nice out. Mainly to save money and wear and tear on my car, plus getting a little exercise never killed anyone.

We have this "dependency" on foreign oil which is really a farce if you think about it. We could work with countries like Venezuela, Iran, Kuwait, Canada, Russia, etc to help make a stable steady market of oil to drive down the price and take that money and do better things with it than line the pockets of rich men and politicians.

here is an interesting article of how oil determines a relationship between US and them.

http://www.greenleft.org.au/2005/619/35164

There was another interesting article on group dynamics. You have to be a subscriber to see the full article so I have tried to summise it.

They made me do it

They made me do it
11 April 2007
Michael Bond

"... any environment in which an individual is subsumed into a group or is reacting to what others are doing... a group mentality can easily take over, leading people to act out of character or adopt extreme or risky positions... an analysis that considered 25,000 social psychology studies... concluded that almost everyone is capable of torture and other evil acts if placed in the wrong social context... if we don't understand the power of group psychology we can never hope to combat evils such as torture, suicide bombings and genocide, or indeed avoid making bad decisions or committing despicable acts of our own."

"... Groups can create environments that diminish individual responsibility, but they can also exert their hold in another way. "There is a significant difference between mob behaviour, in which anonymity and imitation are the important factors, and the direct influence of a group, which involves personal allegiance to leaders and comrades,"... Groups that recruit suicide bombers are among those that use the latter approach, building a sense of community and encouraging feelings of responsibility towards other group members: the "brotherhood mentality". Here, individuals take responsibility for their own actions within a culture where suicide bombing is seen as glorious. Then, by recording farewell messages to family and friends either on videotape or in writing, they make a commitment to their own martyrdom that they cannot renege on without losing face."

"... It is not surprising that people should be so susceptible to the dynamics of their social environment. After all, we evolved as social animals in environments where cooperation and group cohesion were key survival tools... the peer pressure associated with being part of a group can lead people to deny the evidence of their own senses."

"... Another situation in which we are all prone to assuming a strong group mentality is at times of crisis... It is understandable that people look to their own group when they feel threatened, but the result can be an escalation of tension... Iranian college students who were prompted to think about their own death showed greater support for suicide attacks against the US than they would have otherwise... Pyszczynski found that he could change the attitudes of his Iranian students by convincing them that public opinion in their country was opposed to suicide attacks. What's more, in similar studies with US students he first increased their appetite for conflict with Arabs by getting them to think of their own death, and then found he could reduce it simply by showing them photos of family life from many different cultures or reminding them of their own group values, such as compassion, and of what they have in common with others."

Oh yeah I totally agree with that. I am very grateful that I live in a nation where I am allowed and encouraged by some to question everything I know. Even though I have many problems with the US government and I do not agree with lots of people about politics, I wouldn't want to live anywhere else. I am sure if I were born on the other side of the world into a Buddhist or a Muslim nation I could totally be a different person.

Persecution comes into play though as well. I think in some areas it could be considered instinct to conform to the popular belief just on survival alone. I mean when someone strikes us our immediate instinct is to cover up.

Group dynamics definitely are a part of it. Not to make this discussion into a flame war, but a lot of religious people I know are religious just on the fact they were raised that way. They were always around a group of people who in a sense, to put in a nice way, "passed their beliefs down."

I write this from a male perspective, because men wage and cause wars -- testosterone related, I'm fairly certain. From a survival of the species point of view, men are expendable; women are definitely not.

Now imagine yourself, if you are not, between the ages of 16 and 25, say, and admit to yourself (if you're male) that sex plays (or played) a major role in your thoughts, aspirations, and dreams at that age. Perfectly natural.

Now further imagine, if you are not, that you are heterosexual, but that the only women you are permitted to see, spend time with, speak to privately, and even know are your immediate relatives: sisters, mother, grand mothers, and that you are forbidden to so much as touch, let alone see any part of, any other female of your age or older. You have no female acquaintances, and are not permitted to have any.

If you live at the lower margins of a polygamous society, you may never marry, never have your dreams fulfilled - there is a shortage of eligible women and you have very little to offer. Young women will always choose the security of a multiple marriage to a wealthy man before they'll choose you.

Finally, imagine that your religion assures you that, in certain very special circumstances, it is not only permissible to kill, but is indeed commendable; a duty to your religion. Should you be killed while trying to fulfill that duty, it is still very commendable, and in fact, even then you will enter heaven and have free and full access to all the beautiful women you ever imagined in your wildest dreams.

Now all it takes to trip the normal balance between self-preservation and martyrdom is the firm conviction that the cause is just, that the circumstances demand your participation, that your fundamental beliefs are in danger. "They" didn't have to make you do it; it sounds like a dream fulfilled. All you had to know were two things: that the cause is just and commendable, and that all your sexual frustrations would be evermore banished from your existence.

It appears that we urgently need to open as many McDonalds as possible, in the shortest amount of time, in order to defuse tensions around the world.