Terrorism

[McGiver]

Okay, but do you think they value human lives?

Terrorists by definition don't value human lives very high. But our "democratic" western governments do neither.

but our "democratic" western governments do value the lives of the rich.  that is the reason that military enrollment is basically skewed to recruiting the poor as a promise of a brighter tomorrow.  sad that we have become a never ending war machine.  fighting for the rights of riches, such as oil.  and the poor are giving their lives to line the pockets of the rich war mongers.

[Litigious]

but our "democratic" western governments do value the lives of the rich.  that is the reason that military enrollment is basically skewed to recruiting the poor as a promise of a brighter tomorrow.  sad that we have become a never ending war machine.  fighting for the rights of riches, such as oil.  and the poor are giving their lives to line the pockets of the rich war mongers.

I know. We formally have compulsory military duty here, but I sneaked out. Why would I do military service and give a year of my life to the army, when I'm not allowed to buy a gun like a free man and carry it for my own private protection? I'm "allowed" to be cannon-fodder for Sweden but not protect myself against criminals.

[McGiver]

all in the name of the pursuit of wealth.

lets be frank.  countries do not go to war with other countries just to dipose an evil dictator.  they do so to rape and pillage.
if it was about defense, like finding weapons of mass destruction, or to liberate the people so that they may experience democracy, then why the hell have we not invaded north korea.
why?

they are not a rich country, and we do not need them strategically, since we already have japan and south korea.

[Litigious]

all in the name of the pursuit of wealth.

lets be frank.  countries do not go to war with other countries just to dipose an evil dictator.  they do so to rape and pillage.
if it was about defense, like finding weapons of mass destruction, or to liberate the people so that they may experience democracy, then why the hell have we not invaded north korea.
why?

they are not a rich country, and we do not need them strategically, since we already have japan and south korea.

In the specific case of North Korea, it actually might be very dangerous for the US. They have proven that they really have nuclear arms, and Kim Il Jong is a madman, who even makes Saddam looking pretty sane. They wouldn't hesitate to nuke you, even if they would be totally wiped out themself in retaliation.

But of course, war is about raping and pillaging. The US didn't do much about Hitler before the Japs attacked Pearl Harbor and Adolf proclaimed war on you to support his Japanese "buddies".

[Scrapheap]

In the specific case of North Korea, it actually might be very dangerous for the US. They have proven that they really have nuclear arms, and Kim Il Jong is a madman, who even makes Saddam looking pretty sane. They wouldn't hesitate to nuke you, even if they would be totally wiped out themself in retaliation.

Not to mention what would happen if China got involved.

But of course, war is about raping and pillaging. The US didn't do much about Hitler before the Japs attacked Pearl Harbor and Adolf proclaimed war on you to support his Japanese "buddies".

Both of those theaters had oil as a theme as well. Germany went straight for Romanian and Soviet oil fields. Japan started it's war against the Allies as a result of U.S. oil embargo.

[odeon]

They want to force islam upon the entire planet Earth, that's what they're doing. That's called fanaticism. GWB is also a fanatic, but he's a pretty moderate western fanatic, so it isn't that obvious to most of people in the west, at least not in the US itself.

My guess is that your more moderate fanatic has caused the deaths of more people than the muslims you blame.

[Scrapheap]

My guess is that your more moderate fanatic has caused the deaths of more people than the muslims you blame.

When you count Saddam along with all the other Mid-East dictators, we  can't match thier fanaticism or need to kill to maintain order. The Islamic world is going through one of it's bloody phases. It's too bad we need to ally ourselves with Saudi Arabia. Thet're actually the home base of what America is fighting.

We're only a fraction of the muderers that Arabs and Muslims currently are.

[odeon]

I have to disagree, Scrapheap. Even before the current war, GWB and Clinton before him were responsible for killing far more civilians than Saddam and his soulmates. The almost daily bombings over Iraq since the end of the Gulf War contributed both directly and indirectly, as did the trade blockades. None of the dictators has that kind of power--they can kill off whole villages of people and still not be able to match the numbers.

And before anyone protests: I'm NOT defending the dictators in any way. I'm merely pointing out that GWB has the means, while the dictators do not.

If you are interested in real killers other than GWB and the muslim fanatics, take a look at the Chinese.

[Scrapheap]

I have to disagree, Scrapheap. Even before the current war, GWB and Clinton before him were responsible for killing far more civilians than Saddam and his soulmates. The almost daily bombings over Iraq since the end of the Gulf War contributed both directly and indirectly, as did the trade blockades. None of the dictators has that kind of power--they can kill off whole villages of people and still not be able to match the numbers.

And before anyone protests: I'm NOT defending the dictators in any way. I'm merely pointing out that GWB has the means, while the dictators do not.

If you are interested in real killers other than GWB and the muslim fanatics, take a look at the Chinese.

Simply because we have greater means than they do means nothing.

Saddam, King Abdullah (and his half brother Fahd) Assad and others all rule with an iron fist and have both the means AND motive to kill thier own people. Throw in Islamic laws (many carry the death penalty) and you have a system that needes murder to sustain itsself. Order in thier society is maintained through fear on every level.

America by contrast, is more dependent on greed to create order and less on a need to controll the minds of the people.

Can you point to the civilians DELIBERATELY killed by America?? (i.e. specifically targeted for murder as opposed to those caused by collateral damage)

[Litigious]

Most Europeans don't understand this, Scrap. They're muslim sympathizers for I don't know what reasons.

[odeon]

Can you point to the civilians DELIBERATELY killed by America?? (i.e. specifically targeted for murder as opposed to those caused by collateral damage)

I'd say that the over a half a million of children killed as a direct result of the post-Gulf War sanctions (Unicef report, 1999) was deliberate. The effects of the sanctions were well-known to the US but completely ignored. Lifting some of those sanctions would not have mattered at all to the US, but would have saved thousands upon thousands of lives.

I'm sure most of the dictators would defend themselves with your "collateral damage" argument, by the way. Saddam did, at his trial.

My point is that you cannot defend your leader's actions by saying that the other country's leader was even worse. That's kindergarten stuff.

Now, show me where, say, King Abdullah DELIBERATELY  killed civilians. Then tell me why his collateral damage defense isn't as good as GWB's.

Most Europeans don't understand this, Scrap. They're muslim sympathizers for I don't know what reasons.

I'm sorry you misread my post, Litigious. This has nothing to do with muslims per se, although I do sympathize with their plight, especially now that the Western world use them as new scapegoats (Jews aren't PC today, see). The issue at hand is about numbers, as in the number of deaths caused by the respective leaders. I already stated that I don't defend, or condone, the actions of any one of these leaders in regards of innocent civilians of ANY nationality. Please accept that my statement is sincere.

[Scrapheap]

I'd say that the over a half a million of children killed as a direct result of the post-Gulf War sanctions (Unicef report, 1999) was deliberate. The effects of the sanctions were well-known to the US but completely ignored. Lifting some of those sanctions would not have mattered at all to the US, but would have saved thousands upon thousands of lives.

Right and this is Saddam's fault. He could've fed his people, instead he collaberated with French and Russian companies to get cold hard cash to keep his police state funded.

I'm sure most of the dictators would defend themselves with your "collateral damage" argument, by the way. Saddam did, at his trial.

Simply because they use a "collateral damage defense" means nothing. There's a big difference between stray bombs hitting civilians or bad inteligence that hits civilian targets, and systematicaly killing populations to punish them and make them cower.

My point is that you cannot defend your leader's actions by saying that the other country's leader was even worse. That's kindergarten stuff.

On the contrary, I'm acknowledging that ALL governments do evil things. We're simply the lighter shade of grey. It's kindergarden stuff to see thing in black and white.

Now, show me where, say, King Abdullah DELIBERATELY  killed civilians. Then tell me why his collateral damage defense isn't as good as GWB's.

I don't feel like looking up links to this right now, but it's a well known fact that Saudi Arabia's "Morality Police" are still going around the country enforcing Islamic Law at the point of a gun. I'd imagine dozens of people are killed every day. We just don't hear about it often because the press tends to give Saudi Arabia the benefit of the doubt.

Most Europeans don't understand this, Scrap. They're muslim sympathizers for I don't know what reasons.

I'm sorry you misread my post, Litigious. This has nothing to do with muslims per se, although I do sympathize with their plight, especially now that the Western world use them as new scapegoats (Jews aren't PC today, see). The issue at hand is about numbers, as in the number of deaths caused by the respective leaders. I already stated that I don't defend, or condone, the actions of any one of these leaders in regards of innocent civilians of ANY nationality. Please accept that my statement is sincere.

[odeon]

Now, show me where, say, King Abdullah DELIBERATELY  killed civilians. Then tell me why his collateral damage defense isn't as good as GWB's.

I don't feel like looking up links to this right now, but it's a well known fact that Saudi Arabia's "Morality Police" are still going around the country enforcing Islamic Law at the point of a gun. I'd imagine dozens of people are killed every day. We just don't hear about it often because the press tends to give Saudi Arabia the benefit of the doubt.

Actually, this is not killing innocent civilians at all, according to their reasoning and their laws. You may not like fundamentalist Islamic Law (and I don't either) but I thought we were talking about deliberately targeting (innocent) civilians?

[Scrapheap]

Actually, this is not killing innocent civilians at all, according to their reasoning and their laws. You may not like fundamentalist Islamic Law (and I don't either) but I thought we were talking about deliberately targeting (innocent) civilians?

Islamic law deliberatly targets innocent civillians with made up bullshit "laws" which are meant for no other purpose that to dominate and controll people through intimidation. So to answer your question, yes, I have'nt strayed off subject. Islamic law is simply the excuse used to murder ones own people too keep them in line through fear.

[QuirkyCarla]

Okay, but do you think they value human lives?

Terrorists by definition don't value human lives very high. But our "democratic" western governments do neither.

but our "democratic" western governments do value the lives of the rich. 

That is one of the things that pisses me off the most about our system.