This thread still pushing along? I thought I owned it ages ago... :P

 

 

 

splatmster24, so 100,000s of innocent Iraqis can die just as long as 5,000 Americans are spared in the future? Please justify that, because I'm struggling to come to grips with the selfish arrogance of that statement...

 

 

 

Isn't it 3,000 American troops dead now? So, thanks to this war, you've actually replecated 9/11's tragic effect by three fifths...

This thread still pushing along? I thought I owned it ages ago... :P

 

 

 

splatmster24, so 100,000s of innocent Iraqis can die just as long as 5,000 Americans are spared in the future? Please justify that, because I'm struggling to come to grips with the selfish arrogance of that statement...

 

 

 

Isn't it 3,000 American troops dead now? So, thanks to this war, you've actually replecated 9/11's tragic effect by three fifths...

 

 

 

Sorry I haven't read through this whole thread, neither am I going to, but I'll ask you this question if you don't mind.

 

 

 

Who's to say that those "100,000" innocent Iraqis (wouldn't mind a source on that as well :wink: ) were actually innocent and that not 70,000 of them were actually part of the enemy? We don't know the whole story back here in our Western Civilisations because we aren't over there. So who's to say they are innocent?

This thread still pushing along? I thought I owned it ages ago... :P

 

 

 

splatmster24, so 100,000s of innocent Iraqis can die just as long as 5,000 Americans are spared in the future? Please justify that, because I'm struggling to come to grips with the selfish arrogance of that statement...

 

 

 

Isn't it 3,000 American troops dead now? So, thanks to this war, you've actually replecated 9/11's tragic effect by three fifths...

 

 

 

Sorry I haven't read through this whole thread, neither am I going to, but I'll ask you this question if you don't mind.

 

 

 

Who's to say that those "100,000" innocent Iraqis (wouldn't mind a source on that as well :wink: ) were actually innocent and that not 70,000 of them were actually part of the enemy? We don't know the whole story back here in our Western Civilisations because we aren't over there. So who's to say they are innocent?

 

They are an enemy, I'll give you that, but not ours. They're being killed in sectarian violence... it's the Iraqi civilians who are part of opposing sects or those cooperating with the coalition that are usually getting targetted by the car bombs, not the coalition troops. Those that are the enemy of the coalition (ie, the rather ironically-called "insurgency") usually get soaked up by extremist groups, who then go to countries such as Pakistan to train (again, ironically) Jihad.

 

 

 

As for the source, here you go! They claim 654,965 "excess deaths" through from March 2003 to July 2006.

This thread still pushing along? I thought I owned it ages ago... :P

 

 

 

splatmster24, so 100,000s of innocent Iraqis can die just as long as 5,000 Americans are spared in the future? Please justify that, because I'm struggling to come to grips with the selfish arrogance of that statement...

 

 

 

Isn't it 3,000 American troops dead now? So, thanks to this war, you've actually replecated 9/11's tragic effect by three fifths...

 

 

 

Sorry I haven't read through this whole thread, neither am I going to, but I'll ask you this question if you don't mind.

 

 

 

Who's to say that those "100,000" innocent Iraqis (wouldn't mind a source on that as well :wink: ) were actually innocent and that not 70,000 of them were actually part of the enemy? We don't know the whole story back here in our Western Civilisations because we aren't over there. So who's to say they are innocent?

 

They are an enemy, I'll give you that, but not ours. They're being killed in sectarian violence... it's the Iraqi civilians who are part of opposing sects or those cooperating with the coalition that are usually getting targetted by the car bombs, not the coalition troops. Those that are the enemy of the coalition (ie, the rather ironically-called "insurgency") usually get soaked up by extremist groups, who then go to countries such as Pakistan to train (again, ironically) Jihad.

 

 

 

As for the source, here you go! They claim 654,965 "excess deaths" through from March 2003 to July 2006.

 

 

 

Ah thanks for that. Though you'd therefore have to say that they are not "innocent" deaths (I'd say innocent people are those trying to escape the war and not be a part of it) but the vast majority of these people aren't innocent, as they're all trying to kill people here or there and they have enemies trying to kill them. Its war on many fronts with many sides.

 

 

 

So saying their 100,000 innocent deaths isn't entirely correct right? Either way its still 100,000 deaths which is a horrible tragedy for many people's loved ones.

This thread still pushing along? I thought I owned it ages ago... :P

 

 

 

splatmster24, so 100,000s of innocent Iraqis can die just as long as 5,000 Americans are spared in the future? Please justify that, because I'm struggling to come to grips with the selfish arrogance of that statement...

 

 

 

Isn't it 3,000 American troops dead now? So, thanks to this war, you've actually replecated 9/11's tragic effect by three fifths...

 

 

 

Sorry I haven't read through this whole thread, neither am I going to, but I'll ask you this question if you don't mind.

 

 

 

Who's to say that those "100,000" innocent Iraqis (wouldn't mind a source on that as well :wink: ) were actually innocent and that not 70,000 of them were actually part of the enemy? We don't know the whole story back here in our Western Civilisations because we aren't over there. So who's to say they are innocent?

 

They are an enemy, I'll give you that, but not ours. They're being killed in sectarian violence... it's the Iraqi civilians who are part of opposing sects or those cooperating with the coalition that are usually getting targetted by the car bombs, not the coalition troops. Those that are the enemy of the coalition (ie, the rather ironically-called "insurgency") usually get soaked up by extremist groups, who then go to countries such as Pakistan to train (again, ironically) Jihad.

 

 

 

As for the source, here you go! They claim 654,965 "excess deaths" through from March 2003 to July 2006.

 

 

 

Ah thanks for that. Though you'd therefore have to say that they are not "innocent" deaths (I'd say innocent people are those trying to escape the war and not be a part of it) but the vast majority of these people aren't innocent, as they're all trying to kill people here or there and they have enemies trying to kill them. Its war on many fronts with many sides.

 

 

 

So saying their 100,000 innocent deaths isn't entirely correct right? Either way its still 100,000 deaths which is a horrible tragedy for many people's loved ones.

 

Your backward logic makes me laugh...

 

 

 

On the news, where do they say the car bombs go off? I think you'll find mostly, it's in marketplaces, or places where lots of people gather. If they were so intent on killing the occupation, they'd be bombing your troops, but they're targetting innocent civilians - civilians that are trying to reestablish the infrastructure of the country. Also, the vast majority of Iraqis actually want to stay in a country called Iraq - they don't want to be split up into their sectarian groups, which disproves your theory of how everyone is an enemy with someone else.

 

 

 

So, yes, there have been 100,000s of innocent deaths since the declaration of war in March 2003. Only those who engage in sectarian violence cease to become innocent, however, most Iraqis are not interested in sectarian violence, and so most of the Iraqis are actually innocent.

what do you mean by that?

 

 

 

Do you accept that kind of things?

 

 

 

as long as it prevents another 9/11

 

 

 

So you'd be perfectly willing to allow yourself or a family member to be subjected to the same treatment if the government randomly decided that you/they could potentially be a terrorist eventhough there is no evidence to suggest it? I doubt it.

 

 

 

Ah, you see, that is where you are wrong. It is not random, if they take someone to prison they have some reason, it may not be concrete, but they have some reason to suspect that person. if they took me, hey i know im not a terrorist so i have nothing to fear. the way i see it is that most of the world wants us to just open up gauntanomo and let all of the people in there (including the 95% that are terrorists) walk free. does anyone seem to remember the repercussions After 9/11? how the government was massivly investigated so they could shed the blame on them? well now when OUR government is doing what it needs to do to keep more people from dying they are getting blamed again! dont talk to me about Why we went to war in Iraq, that is irrelevent now. right now we need to concentrate on finishing what we started. the reason we arent going to pull out and let them settle it is the fact that the shietes and the sunnies will kill thousands of each other. we are the only thing keeping that from happening.

what do you mean by that?

 

 

 

Do you accept that kind of things?

 

 

 

as long as it prevents another 9/11

 

 

 

So you'd be perfectly willing to allow yourself or a family member to be subjected to the same treatment if the government randomly decided that you/they could potentially be a terrorist eventhough there is no evidence to suggest it? I doubt it.

 

 

 

Ah, you see, that is where you are wrong. It is not random, if they take someone to prison they have some reason, it may not be concrete, but they have some reason to suspect that person. if they took me, hey i know im not a terrorist so i have nothing to fear. the way i see it is that most of the world wants us to just open up gauntanomo and let all of the people in there (including the 95% that are terrorists) walk free. does anyone seem to remember the repercussions After 9/11? how the government was massivly investigated so they could shed the blame on them? well now when OUR government is doing what it needs to do to keep more people from dying they are getting blamed again! dont talk to me about Why we went to war in Iraq, that is irrelevent now. right now we need to concentrate on finishing what we started. the reason we arent going to pull out and let them settle it is the fact that the shietes and the sunnies will kill thousands of each other. we are the only thing keeping that from happening.

 

Well, you're not particularly doing a good job of that are you... they're still doing it.

 

 

 

The issue we have is the whole philosophy of "sentance without trial". If your government is so adament they're terrorists, then why can't you hold them at Guantanamo only while they're waiting for a trial? In fact, why can't you hold them at any other cell while they await their trial, and just get rid of the controversy of Guantanamo? We don't have a problem with you hunting down terrorists inside your own country - what we have a problem with is holding people in cells without having a fair trial just like any other crime requires.

all i can say about that is sorry for the few that are inocent. for everyone else i feel no pity.

Ah, you see, that is where you are wrong. It is not random, if they take someone to prison they have some reason, it may not be concrete, but they have some reason to suspect that person. if they took me, hey i know im not a terrorist so i have nothing to fear.

 

 

 

Did you even bother reading the link I posted? You kidnapped a German civilian who had almost the same name as some terrorist. He got tortured for months without any fair trials. In my eyes that's a goverment led terrorism with random arrests.

 

 

 

With random things like that you don't get less 9/11's. With acts like that you actually give people a reason to do them. They don't attack you just because you're USA, they attack you for what you've done at their place. There's always a reason for things.

 

 

 

the way i see it is that most of the world wants us to just open up gauntanomo and let all of the people in there (including the 95% that are terrorists) walk free. does anyone seem to remember the repercussions After 9/11? how the government was massivly investigated so they could shed the blame on them? well now when OUR government is doing what it needs to do to keep more people from dying they are getting blamed again! dont talk to me about Why we went to war in Iraq, that is irrelevent now. right now we need to concentrate on finishing what we started. the reason we arent going to pull out and let them settle it is the fact that the shietes and the sunnies will kill thousands of each other. we are the only thing keeping that from happening.

 

 

 

Whole this war against terrorism just makes me sick. You close your eyes for your mistakes and punish others for theirs. If you can kidnap and torture civilians just because of their names, declare unofficial financial wars on other countries and try to get big corporations with you at it and same time you even plan to do things that cooler your relations to Russia, you can't talk about war on terrorism. The only differences between terrorists and the goverment of USA are money, education and power. They can't talk about all this jargon you do, they don't have the power to attack other countries like you've done and they don't have the knowledge you do.

 

 

 

The problems in Iraq are caused by mainly you. Saddam was your ally even after he had done some of the crimes he had been accused of, so your excuses at that point are more than lame. Second, with the threaties at 90s, you caused more dead Iraqian civilians than Saddam. 3rd, with your war you caused a civil war there. Great job there indeed and you're still thinking it was great.

This thread still pushing along? I thought I owned it ages ago... :P

 

I don't even need to sift through the pages to know that's not true. Lose the attitude.

all i can say about that is sorry for the few that are inocent. for everyone else i feel no pity.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with hohto. Splatmster, you really highlight the problem with, thankfully, a minority of Americans. You feel that just because 5,000 of your own people died in 9/11 (and don't get me wrong, that's tragic), you have a right to go about the world and do whatever you like, at whatever cost to anyone else, just to make sure that another 9/11 doesn't happen again. Aside from the fact this kind of attitude only makes it more like another 9/11 will happen, it's also just plain arrogance and immoral. Now, I don't condone the actions of al-Queda for one moment, but if you wonder why people are willing to go to such extremes to inflict damage on your country, then your actions really explain that question.

Cut the spamming and flaming, both of you :shame:

lordkrohn is right with his big post, sure the War in Iraq seems like a joke when you're just sitting behind your computer, but it's a big deal. Let me use two examples, NOT COMPARISONS EMPHASIS ON NOT COMPARISONS

 

 

 

number 1 is like if you play Runescape last week there was a game engine update. It doesnt effect anything you do at the moment, but it effects the future greatly.

 

 

 

Terrorism can be like a child. If the child does something wrong, you don't sit around and do anything, because the child will go do more wrong. Contain the child, and the rest of the world won't suffer from the child's indisobediance

lordkrohn is right with his big post, sure the War in Iraq seems like a joke when you're just sitting behind your computer, but it's a big deal. Let me use two examples, NOT COMPARISONS EMPHASIS ON NOT COMPARISONS

 

 

 

number 1 is like if you play Runescape last week there was a game engine update. It doesnt effect anything you do at the moment, but it effects the future greatly.

 

 

 

Terrorism can be like a child. If the child does something wrong, you don't sit around and do anything, because the child will go do more wrong. Contain the child, and the rest of the world won't suffer from the child's indisobediance

 

 

 

THIS IS NOT A CAT

 

 

THIS IS NOT A CAT

 

 

 

This is to demonstrate that putting big bold letters doesn't change the fact that those were pretty big comparisons. And please say you aren't using the example of a child to represent middle eastern culture.

 

 

 

As for the middle eastern situation I fail to sympathise any longer - the region has always been war torn - mostly from their own doing and will probably remain so for decades with or without intervention. The foreign groups and other institutions there are there through their own choice and decision. Not in my name.

I was talking about TERRORISM, NOT the MIDDLE EASTERN CULTURE.

 

 

 

I'm not saying the terrorists are just young children, I am using the doing of a typical child as am example of their acts.

 

 

 

Btw, that's a cute cat. And your point makes no sense. People are suffering from the acts of a group of people from theirselves, and you don't care? People are DIEING, I think you would care if a group of people from your country were killing you! You can sit behind your computer thinking "I don't care, as long as I get my chips and soda!" Well death is no joking matter.

You still made stupid comparisons - whether you meant to or not by comparing terrorism to a child you imply the existence of an adult - a benevolent overseer who's job it is to bring the child round to the right way of thinking and im sorry buddy but the world just doesn't work that way.

 

 

 

"People are suffering from the acts of a group of people from theirselves" this sentence doesn't make sense, sort your grammar, make a point, then i'll answer it.

 

 

 

yes people are DYING but not just in Iraq, they are dying in North Korea, in Zimbabwe, in Ethiopia, in the Sudan, in Venezuela. Do you care about them? where are all your caring posts about these tragedies? Hypocrite. I also never said I didn't care, I said I didn't sympathise learn the difference - as regrettable as it is I feel it is not my country's place to intervene and try and act as world police - not in my name.

 

 

 

Also, the chips and soda quip was cute, but I prefer orange juice thanks.

*DISCLAIMER!* I'm 15 and have lived in low-income housing in Central Pennsylvania all my short little life. On top of that, I only read the first page.

 

 

 

Couple of observations on this war... It seems like Vietnam.

 

 

 

Vietnam: Spreading liberty is a motivation, everyone wants it to end, it seems like we're losing, our soldiers were accused of atrocities and the whole corps was viewed as disgraceful, we pulled out, we may well have lost if we hadn't, we may have won, we still care about it today.

 

 

 

Iraq: See above, except the last 4.

 

 

 

I don't know what to think. I can't say that if I were there I'd do something differently because I don't have an experience to equate with it. I almost want to join the corps so I can find out... not that serving my country wouldn't be an honor, I just don't think I'd be good at it. And to all the soldiers who posted:

 

 

 

Thank you for sharing and thank you for serving.

As imposed by the Government, as Vietnam was, the war isn't meant to be won, but it's meant to be sustained so the Central Bank can reap serious income

Agunimon979, please describe me what's terrorism. In my eyes it has nothing to do with your examples: terrorism is nothing physical if you look deeper at it and it's not the same for every one of us. The one who is hero for you most likely is an enemy to someone else and visa versa. In current american jargon terrorism is something that we all know to exist, but we don't know what is it. Is it their way to hurt our people, is it our way to hurt their people, is it our way to affect to their economical and social situation on theirs attempt to do the same for us or do both sides have the same rules?

 

 

 

The current way how USA is acting isn't going to stop terrorism or "terrorism", however you wanna call it. Anti-american feelings don't disappear when you bomb Bagdad, drive them into a civil war, pressure Iran or kidnap the citizens of a country that belongs to the European Union. If you forgot it, there's still people: families who have lost their closest ones, children without parent(s), young men who have lost their brothers and people who saw how their future turned into piles of rocks. Religion is the only thing they got left and when you got nothing left, you're an easy catch for fundamentalists. That's one way for them to defend: they are under attack, even tho we don't really call it like that. This "terrorism" is their way fight the fight as they don't have the proper equipment for it. Allahs, mullahs, pullahs or other things like that are just one excuse to hire people, not the reasons for the anti-american feelings there.

 

 

 

It's pretty funny how one mantra of yours is that you're bringing democracy to the areas you are invading. What is democracy in your eyes. In my eyes the things you are doing got nothing to do with it. Just because you can vote it doesn't mean we'd be in a democratic country: we also seem to forget that in a democratic country (at least one type of a western democratic) everyone should have equal rights for a fair trial and in being innocent until proven guilty.

 

 

 

baron8000, first of all just because there has been many wars it doesn't mean it couldn't turn into a better place. How many wars was in europe during last few decades? What has caused the wars there? Exactly, there hasn't been too many wars betweens muslims there. Mostly it has been Israel vs some of them, USA vs some of them or something that has gotten its fuel from the international situation. I mentioned Israel there even tho it's a country located in that are for few specific reasons: that country was pretty much found by Europeans and filled with immigrants in a place that was property of someone else, thus it can't really be compared to Iran or Iraq for example. Also with that attitude we can never solve the problems: Near East is a dirty important place for the next few decades because of its natural resources. Totally abandoning it would just mean a huge catastrophy to western countries and someone else going there, with or without same ways to get the oil as USA is doing it at the moment.

 

baron8000, first of all just because there has been many wars it doesn't mean it couldn't turn into a better place. How many wars was in europe during last few decades? What has caused the wars there? Exactly, there hasn't been too many wars betweens muslims there. Mostly it has been Israel vs some of them, USA vs some of them or something that has gotten its fuel from the international situation. I mentioned Israel there even tho it's a country located in that are for few specific reasons: that country was pretty much found by Europeans and filled with immigrants in a place that was property of someone else, thus it can't really be compared to Iran or Iraq for example. Also with that attitude we can never solve the problems: Near East is a dirty important place for the next few decades because of its natural resources. Totally abandoning it would just mean a huge catastrophy to western countries and someone else going there, with or without same ways to get the oil as USA is doing it at the moment.

 

 

 

I think you have me slightly wrong there, I agree with you on that its perfectly possible for the middle east to gain stability and peace (although there have been plenty of muslim-muslim wars both fairly modern and ancient, they just get ignored) and I think reading through your point that we share the same view. I believe (as you have stated) that the prime cause of modern tension in the middle east is western intervention and attack - meddling where we shouldn't be. Israel is a perfect example as you stated and is a whole other issue that I won't go into. I think we need to pull out, leave them be, help them in other ways that do not include war - demonstrate to them the benefits of Western culture and they will realise the positives and step away from fundamentalism and terrorism - shoving our ideology down their throat along with a grenade will not help. Also, natural resources is no reason to invade a country although im unsure of your point there.

 

 

 

yes people are DYING but not just in Iraq, they are dying in North Korea, in Zimbabwe, in Ethiopia, in the Sudan, in Venezuela. Do you care about them? where are all your caring posts about these tragedies? Hypocrite.

 

 

 

 

 

 

NEWS FLASH: THIS THREAD ISN'T ABPUT SUDAN, ETHIOPIA, ZIMBABWE, OR VENEZUELA! Maybe bolding words will help you think straight!

 

 

 

yes people are DYING but not just in Iraq, they are dying in North Korea, in Zimbabwe, in Ethiopia, in the Sudan, in Venezuela. Do you care about them? where are all your caring posts about these tragedies? Hypocrite.

 

 

 

 

 

 

NEWS FLASH: THIS THREAD ISN'T ABPUT SUDAN, ETHIOPIA, ZIMBABWE, OR VENEZUELA! Maybe bolding words will help you think straight!

 

 

 

so they don't matter? don't you care? there are people DYING! Don't take the holy righteous campaigner side, daring to condemn me as uncaring when you are in fact oblivious or ignorant of all the other tragedy in the word. Who is worse? Me who keeps quiet and doesn't attempt to ram my ideology down others throats and does his best to help others in an everyday situation, or you, campaigner for whichever war is currently in the media spotlight - I ask you - what have you done to help out these poor unfortunates? Have you put your money where your mouth is? Served? I'm sure the Iraqi citizens will be so happy you wrote some really nice things about them on the internet. All or nothing bub. Hypocrite. Also, way to dodge all the other questions I asked you.

 

 

 

I don't expect you to understand most of this, but do try.

The direction we're currently going in our foreign policy is not going to solve the problem. It's just going to make it worse. 9/11 happened because of our over involvement in the middle east. And all current administration and the neocons in congress did was make our foreign policy more aggressive, which only increased recruitment in terrorist factions.

 

 

 

People who actually believe in that "fight them over there so we don't fight them over here" tripe really need to get with the program and realize how to really resolve the problem. We can't fight terror and religious fundamentalism with conventional warfare like some people seem to think. The strategy we're using is completely wrong, and it only made things worse they they originally were.

I think you have me slightly wrong there, I agree with you on that its perfectly possible for the middle east to gain stability and peace (although there have been plenty of muslim-muslim wars both fairly modern and ancient, they just get ignored) and I think reading through your point that we share the same view. I believe (as you have stated) that the prime cause of modern tension in the middle east is western intervention and attack - meddling where we shouldn't be. Israel is a perfect example as you stated and is a whole other issue that I won't go into. I think we need to pull out, leave them be, help them in other ways that do not include war - demonstrate to them the benefits of Western culture and they will realise the positives and step away from fundamentalism and terrorism - shoving our ideology down their throat along with a grenade will not help. Also, natural resources is no reason to invade a country although im unsure of your point there.

 

 

 

Yea slightly misread your point there. The prime reason for current situation is in western culture. The number of muslim-muslim wars on 20th century for example wasn't THAT great. They weren't unexistant, but we've seen west-west wars too in a lot larger scale.

 

 

 

Probably the best way at the moment would be to build good connections between USA+allies and with the muslim countries. It might be hard at first with all the things done by both sides, but in my eyes it's worth it. We don't need to convert them into western culture or turn into their culture. Both can stay what they are aslong as they got the same aim which is peace. After all the reason for this bothsided hatred is in acts, not cultures or their differences.

 

 

 

Also, natural resources is no reason to invade a country although im unsure of your point there

 

 

 

Limited but important natural resources are one of the "best" ways for wars to start. To start a war you need a reason which usually is power. With a resource that's as limited and important as oil, it's not a miracle that it's one of the main (but not the only!) for powerpolitics. It doesn't matter does over 70% of Y country's oil come from counry X at the moment, it's more important who got big enough stock when it really is almost out.

 

 

 

NEWS FLASH: THIS THREAD ISN'T ABPUT SUDAN, ETHIOPIA, ZIMBABWE, OR VENEZUELA! Maybe bolding words will help you think straight!

 

 

 

Please, open your mind. When we take examples from other places too than Iraq, we enlarge the view and show new points/proofs/whatever to our thoughts.

I think you have me slightly wrong there, I agree with you on that its perfectly possible for the middle east to gain stability and peace (although there have been plenty of muslim-muslim wars both fairly modern and ancient, they just get ignored) and I think reading through your point that we share the same view. I believe (as you have stated) that the prime cause of modern tension in the middle east is western intervention and attack - meddling where we shouldn't be. Israel is a perfect example as you stated and is a whole other issue that I won't go into. I think we need to pull out, leave them be, help them in other ways that do not include war - demonstrate to them the benefits of Western culture and they will realise the positives and step away from fundamentalism and terrorism - shoving our ideology down their throat along with a grenade will not help. Also, natural resources is no reason to invade a country although im unsure of your point there.

 

 

 

Yea slightly misread your point there. The prime reason for current situation is in western culture. The number of muslim-muslim wars on 20th century for example wasn't THAT great. They weren't unexistant, but we've seen west-west wars too in a lot larger scale.

 

 

 

Probably the best way at the moment would be to build good connections between USA+allies and with the muslim countries. It might be hard at first with all the things done by both sides, but in my eyes it's worth it. We don't need to convert them into western culture or turn into their culture. Both can stay what they are aslong as they got the same aim which is peace. After all the reason for this bothsided hatred is in acts, not cultures or their differences.

 

 

 

Also, natural resources is no reason to invade a country although im unsure of your point there

 

 

 

Limited but important natural resources are one of the "best" ways for wars to start. To start a war you need a reason which usually is power. With a resource that's as limited and important as oil, it's not a miracle that it's one of the main (but not the only!) for powerpolitics. It doesn't matter does over 70% of Y country's oil come from counry X at the moment, it's more important who got big enough stock when it really is almost out.

 

 

 

NEWS FLASH: THIS THREAD ISN'T ABPUT SUDAN, ETHIOPIA, ZIMBABWE, OR VENEZUELA! Maybe bolding words will help you think straight!

 

 

 

Please, open your mind. When we take examples from other places too than Iraq, we enlarge the view and show new points/proofs/whatever to our thoughts.

 

 

 

Seems we are in agreement, once again I agree with you on the resources what I meant was it "shouldn't" be a reason, whilst I realise unfortunately it is. I think perhaps a good area to start would be an amalgamation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent and similar organisations - show off the good parts of western life whilst not forcing it is the key I feel. Its certainly possible - look at Saudi Arabia - many many aspects of Western culture and stability yet retains its Muslim law and culture, then look at countries "we" have intervened or pressured - Libya, Iran, Chechnya (by Russia) need I say more? I feel as though I'm preaching to the converted now so i'll finish up.