Forums / Miscellaneous Discussions / when will it stop

the simple answer is because we can and no one is going to stop us... you might not like it but thats the way it is.

you can ask the question "Why" to any subject, why is osiris so emo....why is dak a crazy person who should be back in his padded cell.

wai kent wi ol ispel praperli?

Well Al Qaeda was not an organised faction before 9/11. Im not even sure it is today.

wow those were good answers.  very short and simple.  :)

"--not likely anytime soon, whether the US is in it or not"
It can begin to end as soon america leaves, we know for sure it wont aslong the us is still in Iraq.

"--but if you kill the man who commits it, then you have in effect stopped terrorism.  The idea itself cannot be stopped.  That same idea alone with no one to use it is harmless. "
Well, I suppose you mean like suicide bobmbers since America is the largest terrorist arround. And most suicide bobmers are areas where the people are victims of terrorism by either US soldiers Israeli soldiers or soldiers from a US friendly goverment (ie, Egypt or Saudi Arabia). Get people a decent life down there and they wont feel the need to try and kill themself.

"--strange you should mention countries ruled by a dictator... Iraq was one.  Furthermore, neither Americans nor most of the world would prefer it if we rushed to some country in Africa and tried to make a mini-America before leaving the land in half-built unorganized shambles."

we are beeing coditioned on a mass scale to think like Osi sayain ect.
its to late for Osi doh :p.
there is a large group of people agains it and doing something against it no matter how small it may seem.The best method to deal with people like us is to trow a towl over us and hide it from tv and media ect. to prevent it from spreading but it will spread.And its just not this specific case.
Why are we even so intrested in iraq ect. is it becouse the thing that are happining there 'inhuman'?woulnt we all like to think sow but unfortunitaly these kinds of things happen in alot of places and the only reason you get to see these images is becouse of becouse its in the intrest of the elite rich.They are trying not to make the same mistake like in vietnam by trying to hide it and leave all of the news about it to the ones agains the war who where trying to gain awareness for it.
we wont jsut stand up for these kindof cruelties that they infactdrown us in every day but also against all other other hidden cruelties
no matter how difrent it may seem has the same reasons and the same kindof thinking behind it.

also
ref.    3 episode documentary                 

Trap: What happend to our dreams of freedom.

"It can begin to end as soon america leaves, we know for sure it wont aslong the us is still in Iraq."

If democracy fails, there will certainly be a violent civil war in which factions compete for power.  End to the killing?  No.

"Well, I suppose you mean like suicide bobmbers since America is the largest terrorist arround."

Define terrorism, please.

"Get people a decent life down there and they wont feel the need to try and kill themself."

The lack of American involvement in the Mid East won't necessarily raise the standards of living.

"When you are forced to defend what you have stolen? (ie: natural resources in south america)"

What I was actually trying to get at was that if there is an agressor nation and a victim nation, if the victim nation gives in and resigns its resources, then there is, in effect, peace.  However, the victim does not want to lose its resources.  So it fights back.  Even if the resource is non-essential to life.  War truly is run by the wealthy, and on BOTH ends.

"more that like 80% of vitoms of war in iraq are killed by bombs and many innocent victims do die in those bombs wich creates more terrorists."

So kill the people setting the bombs and you've stopped terrorism.  (In theory.)

"most of the people get killed by pilots who drop bombs on people from miles above with the purpose of killing those people."

For the most part the bombs dropping from airplanes stage of the war is over.  The largest amount of casualties at this point come from IEDs, suicide bombings, or ambushes.  I'm not going to say the insurgents are the evil ones here because American troops have commited some wrongdoings, whether by accident or intentional, against innocent bystanders.

this is a video what will happen in the future:).  the only way to end violence is to kill everybody:)http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/end.php

It is true we trained them how to attack Russian invaders and gave them weapons to do so.

But there would be terrorists with or without the weapons.  The biggest killer in Iraq now are IEDs, which are usually homemade.

hmmm evil russians thats all they do isnt it. (-_-')

but US dint just give weapons they gave training most importantly to the Rebel or future Terrorist 'leader' Bin ladin

He  Pretty much went to TERRORIST SCHOOL in US for 7 years getting terrorist training.

OR no im sorry thats not what you call what the CIA does by couseing the deaths of thousends of people.....

 oh yes coverd operation training.

Don't we all?

You'll never make a good politican with that line of thought :)

Though the world could use another Ghandi.

Mr Peace and war, Russia didnt kill alot of people in Afghanistan, america on the other hand dont like nationalized property so they made Afghanistan to the *beep*whole it was before you made it an ever bigger *beep*whole with the Invasion.

"If democracy fails, there will certainly be a violent civil war in which factions compete for power.  End to the killing?  No."
Throwing out the Israelis and American supported terrorists will be bloody. The fact that the US is trying to create that civil war already is whats makes it ever bloodier. And YES eventually, when the struggle for power is over will end the killings. How can you be so sure the struggle for power will be as violent as against the US occupiers?

"The lack of American involvement in the Mid East won't necessarily raise the standards of living."
Yea it probably would. Look at the nations in teh middle east that recieves american support and then tell me they wouldnt be better of without their american supported govermetns (Egypt, Saudi arabia) or look at Iraq before the sanctions wich served no point then to destroy the Iraqi middle class at the same time they made Saddams grip stronger not to mention the USA put Saddam in power in the first place.

"Define terrorism, please."
Killing innocent civilians.

"What I was actually trying to get at was that if there is an agressor nation and a victim nation, if the victim nation gives in and resigns its resources, then there is, in effect, peace.  However, the victim does not want to lose its resources.  So it fights back.  Even if the resource is non-essential to life.  War truly is run by the wealthy, and on BOTH ends."
I dont see what point your trying to make with the agressor victim nation thing, your gonna have to make that more clear. Well Americas wars in South America has had the support of the South American elite generally, focusing to destroy the efforts of the poor to make a decent living for themself. Look at Nicaragua, El salvador, Cuba, Colombia etc. America has protected the rich in south america from the poor, and killing millions of poor people in the process. Good on ya!

"So kill the people setting the bombs and you've stopped terrorism.  (In theory.)" Sure you can do that, worked well for ya in Vietnam. America has INVADED iraq. You cant call people targetting americans terrorists, they are freedom fighters. America is the terrorist, it dosnt care for human lifes.

"For the most part the bombs dropping from airplanes stage of the war is over.  The largest amount of casualties at this point come from IEDs, suicide bombings, or ambushes."

Most of the Americans killed.

" I'm not going to say the insurgents are the evil ones here because American troops have commited some wrongdoings, whether by accident or intentional, against innocent bystanders."
Some wrongdoings like killing a million innocent civilians?

nah just hope Democrats they will like give half the oil away adn make deals with neigbor countries to do their job for them :D and reatreat like 80% troops there.

"Democrats aren't really any more humane than Republicans are.  Opposing Iraq is just something they can get publicity for."

You have nothing to support that. The fact that remain though is that the republicans just killed a million innocents in Iraq.

"American-supported terrorists?  What, the militia we are trying to train to ensure that elections go on?"

No, the american and israeli mercenarys going on a killing spree trying to create a civil war.

"Once American troops are gone, insurgents will continue to kidnap, murder, and hold hostage supporters of democracy, reconstruction funded by America, and murder those who would oppose a new regime from rising up."

No way you can know that, and its demeaning to the Iraqis saying they cant fix their own nation. What we do know is that the killing wont stop as long as America remains in Iraq. America has done nothing right this far, only killed alot of civilians so leaving Iraq is the first step, then America should pay for all the warcrimes it commited.

"You're not referring to American policy 20-30 years ago when the USSR was about to invade, are you?  Yeah, things have changed."
There was hardly a cold war to speak of when the sanctions begun. And they have been running until this Iraq war. The sanctions are said be responisble for causing 500.000 childrens deaths and has only strenghend Saddams rule.

And who was USSR about to invade? I think you got the info upside down, USA was the nation that invaded Soviet. Soviet was never even close to invading America.

"So if a police officer accidently shoots a bystander while trying to kill a man in a crowded mall strapped with bombs, he is the terrorist, since he's the one who actually killed someone?"
... No. Using violence or the threat of violence to inflict fear is the defention of terror. And by that standard America is by FAR the largest terrorist.

"Two men are in a room.  A third man has a gun and points it at the two.  The two men make peace.  Peace made!  That simple enough for you?"

What?! Should I even respond to that one? Read what I said again. Wow, we have tyrranical ditatorships that sells out all the nations natural resources to America, for military support to terrorize the population so they can keep their power. Sure America points a gun at the poor to make them give everything they have or they shoot them. How can you defend that? Look at how you supported the Sormozas in Nicaragua killing two and a half million civilans in the process.
(please dont use metaphors in the future).

"You hold a very narrow view of American involvement in South America.  Building roads, power plants, canals, telephone lines, etc. does not only effect the wealthy elite but helps the middle and poor classes as well.  Companies in South America that have been restored to their geographical owners have a steady and reliable export.  How much have you studied economics?  The fact is lives will be lost in any modernizing region; it's a natural phase, and not completely attributeable to American doings."

I take it american companies built thoose roads, powerplants, canals, telephone lines etc. out of goodwill, no? Was they payed for with taxes? Why even bring it up then? They could have gotten that from anywhere else.

"You don't seem to realize that a million + casualties includes civilians, insurgents, and troops alltogether.  And not even by direct combat, but by internal strife between religious factions.  If you say America is responsible for all those deaths because we came, you might as well Julius Ceasar for blaming the deaths of 2000 years of European-related wars."

The freedom fighters in Iraq didnt ask for an american occupation as far as I know. I dont think you have killed that many soldiers though. However I guess when u kill civilians you call them "insurgents" to make it look better. And of course America is responsible for all thoose deaths, you could have just not invaded, you knew this was gonna happen and still did it.

Why would Caesar be responsible for 2000 years of european related wars?

"And of course America is responsible for all thoose deaths, you could have just not invaded, you knew this was gonna happen and still did it."

The CIA had strong evidence of weapons of mass destruction.  Britain and many other European countries offered to aid American troops in invasion and occupation.  Saddam is gone and a democracy is being set up with free elections.  If you want, call America a "new" type of terror, but don't forget Iraq was never a land of butterflies and bunnies to begin with.

"Why would Caesar be responsible for 2000 years of european related wars?"

Caesar introduced European Warfare.  America introduces war into Iraq.  Caesar and the Roman Empire didn't cause a majority of the bloodshed caused by Roman war.  America has not directly caused a majority of lives lost in Iraq.  American bombs and bullets have not killed a million civilians.

"Democrats supported intervention in Iraw prior to 9/11.  They didn't strongly oppose the initial invasion.  Only in recent years has Iraq become the touchy subject that you can't mention American politics without bringing up."

Sure but it was the Republicans who lied to them.

"Can you provide some citations?"

I either read it in some article posted on www.whatreallyhappened.com or in the Iraqi movie code of silence, dont remember.

"Look at history.  When a regime falls, factions compete for power.  America has does nothing right so far?  Saddam was in violation of weapons inspections.  Saddam committed genocide, gassed entire villaged, murdered his own relatives to secure his reign.  So it would have been best to keep him alive and in control?  How about setting up elections and helping to frame a constitution to protect rights civilians lacked under Saddam?  Rebuilding homes, setting up hospitals, training police?"

Sure, but most of the factions are already cooperating. And sure I think it will be bloody when America leaves, but America mannaged to kill millions of civilians where ever it goes. When America is out peace can begin.
No, you shouldnt have put him in power in the first place. When he already was in power u shouldnt have given him Chemical weapons to bomb the kurds. And when that already was done u shouldnt have imposed sanctions that only made hin stronger. The fact remains that before the sanctions life was pretty good in Iraq, and the midle class was growing. The more educated the people got eventually they would get rid of him themself.

When the election is a joke, the constitution isnt followed by the rulers and the hospitals dosnt recieve much money, at the same time all the Iraqi oil is stolen worth billions, and their family members killed I guess they have reasons to be a little angry in Iraq?

"Soviet unions attempted to invade Afghanistan.  US trained Iraqi forces and terrorists to combat this.  I never said the USA was being invaded."

Why are u dragging this up then? Afghanistan isnt even close to Iraq.

"Well, here you've changed your definition of terror.

Also by this idea, the UN is a terrorist because it demands weapon inspections and weapons regulations with the threat of repercussion through blockades, tarriffs, and in worst-case-scenario, invasion."

Please use common sence. The UN actions isnt directed at the population.

"Let's talk about Korea some.  Communist forces in North Korea invade South Korea.  The UN condemns this action and pledges action against it.  But %90 of the troops sent to Korea... are American."

It was an American war to protect the facist dictator in south Korea, Syngman Rhee. And since the Soviet boycotted the UN at the time because the UN had taiwan (american facist puppet at the time) represent all of China. So any UN resolution at that time was only American doing.

"Might I mention that this is "in theory" and speaking nothing of morality or ethics."

What you was sayin is that you want the peace of the gun to keep injustices because they favour america.

"So do the republics, commonwealths, etc."
What? Yes France and England likes to help dictatorships that favour them aswell. Thats our Capitalist system at work.

"Goodwill, no.  Profit.  Companies require such infrastucture, so they funded the projects or funded governments to complete such actions."

Are you saying that Amerian companie built infrastructure in South america for free?

"American terror isnt a new type of terror, America was built on the genocide of the native Americans."

As is European terror of Greeks and Romans fighting the "barbarians" of other lands?  Or practically any other North or South American country?

"No they didnt have any "strong evidence", evidence would mean that there was WMDs. "

Do you know what evidence means?

"There was none. The UN inspectors said so"

Because Saddam would not allow full searches.

"Democracy and free elections are just words, anyone can say them"

Anyone can say "American terrorism" and "million dead innocent civilians" as well.  One purpose of continued occupation is to assist Iraq in free elections and democracy; if America suddenly and completely withdrew, chances are much higher that the system will collapse quickly and give way to a new dicatorship.  This isn't just what the politicians say.

Even if America withdrew all its troops and just had people building homes and funding police and a constitutional democracy they'd still be getting blown up by insurgents.

I dont really get alot of the points your trying to get Iron. I just think that thoose (America and England) who have been torturing the Iraqi people for twenty years have the right to use violence to achieve Democracy. America have no credability, America has a history of supporting the most brutal dictatorships on the planet, and crushing any Democracy (In their power) that does not agree with them.

What really bothers me is that my nation with other nations helps America to be able to stay in this war. My goverment is using our tax money to buy dollars because your currency is on the brink of collapse. Thats the price we normal taxpayers has to pay to help our weapon companies to get american orders and make the stock owners even richer.

"I just think that thoose (America and England) who have been torturing the Iraqi people for twenty years have the right to use violence to achieve Democracy."

Do have the right?

"What really bothers me is that my nation with other nations helps America to be able to stay in this war."

This is perfectly understandable.  I'm not really very fond of the war myself either, and my generation is who will have to pay for it.

"My goverment is using our tax money to buy dollars because your currency is on the brink of collapse."

The American currency is on the brink of collapse?

"And Ironpick, thoose you call insurgents are gonna have to be the people who builds up a new goverment."

Many of the insurgents are religious fanatics or former supporters of Saddam's regime.  Once American troops are gone, they will likely turn to terrorizing supporters of the constitutional democracy.

True

9trillion dollars divided by 300m is 30k per person. 50 trillion dollars divided by 300m is 170k per american citizen. Thats problematic. And the dollar is not stable, compared to african currencys or the rubel, not compared to the euro or pound. The swedish goverment does not need to invest in dollars as a stable currency, neither does the japaneese or chineese. We do it because you cant afford your war so you just print up dollars to cover the expenses, our nations buy them  to help you out.

An intresting thing was that Saddam Hussein was about to stop accepting dollars for oil, this is intresting since what keeps the dollar up is that the OPEC nations only accept dollars for oil. If that was to change the dollar would be in for a low. That would probably bring on another depression and none of the capitalist nations want that. De Gaulle had similar plans to crush the dollar but didnt see them though.

Mr. Avionaro Report 5/22/2007 2:15:57 PM

USA only creates terrorism, perhaps we should invite bush to this game, so he canplay his  war here, instead of the real world. I'm not supprised if the CIA caused 9/11. that Al qaida or somethng is just a splintercelll of the cia or something like that. such agencies have to secure their funds, no war, no funds.

Oi. Do I need to jump in here about terrorism? Let's forget the War in Iraq. (which is actually a good thing and the left-wing media needs to *beep* and stop spreading 'We are losing' nonsense. If we're losing, it's only because of them)

Anyone familiar with Palestine? Yeah, it's that little place near Israel that's been the source of their terrorism for quite some time. So, we've got Israel's peaceful Muslim neighbors fighting amongst themselves, Hamas and Fatah. We've got Hamas kicking the other group's @$$ in so many ways, and then dragging their defeated opponents in the streets (some in their underwear) and then gunned down.

Still, all of that is terror, especially to the civilians trapped over there, is it not? No Americans in Palestine. Hmm, hey maybe this is the 'evil' nature of the Islamofacist extremists and they'll continue with what they're doing unless stopped. Now when I say stopped, I'm not meaning let's sit down at a table and 'talk' so we can 'understand' each other. (Reminds me of the story where there's a hunter wanting a bearskin coat and the bear wanting a full stomach, and they both compromised and they both got what they wanted. (Hunter gets eaten by bear, for those who don't catch on fast.)) Evil must be confronted and put down.

"An intresting thing was that Saddam Hussein was about to stop accepting dollars for oil, this is intresting since what keeps the dollar up is that the OPEC nations only accept dollars for oil. If that was to change the dollar would be in for a low. That would probably bring on another depression and none of the capitalist nations want that. De Gaulle had similar plans to crush the dollar but didnt see them though."

Here's another interesting thing: Hussein probably had most of the other nations on the UN Security Council bought off with money from oil profits. I think they were getting a 1% kickback from them (though when you start selling millions-billions in oil, 1% doesn't look half-bad).

Long/Short of it is this, I can find clips from the Clinton Era from where they were saying the CIA had WMDs, and how he was supporting terrorism. Yet they didn't do squat about it. So when Bush goes in there with the same info, he's the spawn of all evil? Now if Hilary gets elected (God help us), she can campaign on getting us out of Iraq all she wants, once she's in there though you'll find we're still over there.