Cost of War - 655k Iraqi Dead - DPChallenge Forums

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

10/11/2006 10:10:12 AM · #1

I know that it is a well rehearsed topic, but this is a particular issue that has come up time and time again and this latest report deserves to be highlighted.

It is important for those who support the war to acknowledge its consequences: in this case, conservative estimates indicate 655,000 Iraqi people have died to date who probably would not have died but for the allied invasion. That it 2.5% of the population of Iraq, or 1 in every 40 people.

//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6040054.stm

These figures might be acceptable if the war had a moral justification or if it had achieved something (other than increased tension). But it increasingly appears that this is the price paid for democracy - that is, (until recently) the price paid by the Iraqi people for GWB to gain the popular vote in the US.

milo655321

Nikon D70

10/11/2006 10:32:21 AM · #2

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

These figures might be acceptable if the war had a moral justification or if it had achieved something (other than increased tension).

Donâ��t forget the leaks of the National Intelligence Estimate report which state that the war in Iraq has increased the threat of terrorism rather than diminished it. Do you have any idea how much effort we in the States had put into increasing that animosity? Weâ��ve had to spend $333 billion (so far) to create that kind of hatred. (Fortunately, we donâ��t have to bear the burden alone. Our children will also be footing the bill.)

10/11/2006 10:36:45 AM · #3

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

But it increasingly appears that this is the price paid for democracy - that is, (until recently) the price paid by the Iraqi people for GWB to gain the popular vote in the US.

I would say that any president that goes to war risks being very unpopular in the post-vietnam era. Sure, you might get some short term gains from people who are emotionally afffected (fear of terrorism, hatred of other cultures and ideologies) but the long term is rarely a plus side.

With North Korea threatening to use nukes and Iran looking for nuclear strike capabilities...655 thousand is unfortunately gonna pale in comparison to a nuclear device going off in Seoul, South Korea courtesy of Kim Jong-il or a nuclear bomb going off in Tel-Aviv courtesy of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Atomic dust is gonna make it hard to count the bodies as well................

OH...and since we are acknowledging the great human sacrifices many families make through time..(Which my grandfather made in World War II)
these numbers are also significant.

World War II Fatalities

Soviet Union* Military-8,668,000, Civilians-16,900,000, Total-25,568,000

China Military-1,324,000, Civilians-10,000,000, Total-11,324,000

Germany Military-3,250,000, Civilians-3,810,000, Total-7,060,000

Poland Military-850,000, Civilians-6,000,000, Total-6,850,000

Japan Military-1,506,000, Civilians-300,000, Total-1,806,000

Yugoslavia Military-300,000, Civilians-1,400,000, Total-1,700,000

Rumania* Military-520,000, Civilians-465,000, Total-985,000

France* Military-340,000, Civilians-470,000, Total-810,000

Hungary* Total-750,000

Austria Military-380,000, Civilians-145,000, Total-525,000

Greece* 520,000

Italy Military-330,000, Civilians-80,000, Total-410,000

Czechoslovakia Total-400,000

Great Britain Military-326,000 Civilians-62,000 Total-388,000

USA Military-295,000 Total-295,000 (My Grandfather)

Holland Military-14,000, Civilians-236,000, Total-250,000

Total worldwide....61 million

My point...we still live in a world where wars and death are a part of the struggle of human existence and I don't see this changing in my lifetime. I hope one day all conflict will be seen as a failure of humans on both sides to acknowledge that we should support human liberty instead of political and religous dogma.

Message edited by author 2006-10-11 10:39:16.

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

10/11/2006 11:17:51 AM · #4

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

"These figures might be acceptable if the war had a moral justification or if it had achieved something (other than increased tension).

I think the war DID have numerous moral justifications.

Did it succeed? Probably not...so does success make the real difference? Probably. We won the war and lost the peace. (as per usual).

Originally posted by "milo655321":

Donâ��t forget the leaks of the National Intelligence Estimate report which state that the war in Iraq has increased the threat of terrorism rather than diminished it.

You mean the mis-quoted statement?

Originally posted by "milo655321":

Weâ��ve had to spend $333 billion (so far) to create that kind of hatred.

Balogne...

It has been there for centuries. And even recently at such levels. Just look at friggin NYC bro.

What we spent $333 billion on was to ensure that when that hatred was expelled it was not expelled on U.S. soil. So yes, one might say we chose 650,000 Iraqis, U.S. soldiers, islamofascists, and terrorists to die instead of U.S. civilians.

Originally posted by "hokie":

My points...

Excellent post. And add to that list my Great Uncle.

***

That all said, the number is tragic. Will the middle-east be able to gain freedom from the fascist and islamofascist elements controlling that region? I do not know. But perhaps it's just an American concept, we often feel that it is better to die free and fighting than live under tyranny. (Might add, we chose this same choice when under Britain.)

Some estimate the loss of life during the American Revolution as high as 250,000 dead from war, disease, prisoner conditions, etc.

---

This does not mean any of us are happy with 650k dead. That said, every day I am reading about how 25,50,100 are killed in Iraq from suicide bombings, poisoning, firing squads, etc.

The one's doing this in Iraq are determined to win. After they win in Iraq they are determined to win in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and elsewhere. After that they are determined to win in Spain, England, France, the Caucuses, India. And see their main oppositions in Europe, the Americas, etc fall to ruin. And then to occupy those places as well.

This is what they want. They will NOT stop killing unless they are stopped. They will not stop on their own, except for a mere pause to allow them to regain tactical advantage.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING. BUT WE NEED TO BE DOING SOMETHING. THAT MUCH, I DO KNOW!

Meanwhile, I will mourn those who have lost their lives. And count every drop precious. Which is why I am all the more determined to WIN! To me, the worst thing we could do is to give up and make their bloodshed worthless. This is what we did in Vietnam. It didn't do us nor the Vietnamese much good. The tactics and politics were wrong. And they are likely wrong today as well.

I am open to solutions and advice, thoughts on better tactics and policies.

Message edited by author 2006-10-11 11:28:53.

milo655321

Nikon D70

10/11/2006 12:02:44 PM · #5

Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by "milo655321":

Donâ��t forget the leaks of the National Intelligence Estimate report which state that the war in Iraq has increased the threat of terrorism rather than diminished it.

You mean the mis-quoted statement?

Misquoted how?

Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by "milo655321":
Weâ��ve had to spend $333 billion (so far) to create that kind of hatred.

Balogne...
It has been there for centuries. And even recently at such levels. Just look at friggin NYC bro.

While animosity has been there for ages, the Iraqi War has inspired and been a recruiting tool for the next generation of terrorists. I also havenâ��t forgot 9/11 which â��officiallyâ�� has nothing to do with the reasons we invaded Iraq.

Originally posted by theSaj:

What we spent $333 billion on was to ensure that when that hatred was expelled it was not expelled on U.S. soil. So yes, one might say we chose 650,000 Iraqis, U.S. soldiers, islamofascists, and terrorists to die instead of U.S. civilians.

Nonsense. Weâ��re still under threat of attack on U.S. soil by Islamic extremists. Thatâ��s why we have a Department of Homeland Security. The Iraqi War has just helped to create more extremists.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

10/11/2006 12:09:15 PM · #6

I am a Green Party / Libertarian / Agnostic ....

In other words..I probably don't agree with the majority (meaning 90%) of the voting public.

I don't go to church nor believe in most of the tribal myths that have been passed down from various religous sects. I don't believe the myth of Democracy or Communism or Socialism.

I believe that I am a human being that is like most human beings. I like to eat, have a roof over my head, have the comfort of a few friends and family who like to laugh at silly things sometimes and maybe...get a chance to express my thoughts, feelings and ambitions once in a while.

All that said....I also realize that the world is still a place filled with cultural and ideological intolerance where people cannot stand to let other people think as they please and men and women trade their brothers and sisters in for personal gain (whether that be for money, sex, power or for a get into heaven/paradise/wherever card).

Death is inevitable as long as people hate and covet others resources and are willing to use force to promote their ultimate ends.

With that in mind....I have run across very few innocents anywhere and if we want to view the cuprits most of us (including me at times) have no further to look than in a mirror at some point in their life.

Now that I have offended EVERYONE...:-/

Message edited by author 2006-10-11 12:11:04.

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

10/11/2006 12:18:00 PM · #7

655,000????

iraqbodycount.org (backed by antiwar.com and explained by Wikipedia) seems to think the number is less then 50,000 dead.

10/11/2006 12:19:58 PM · #8

Originally posted by hokie:

Death is inevitable

I'm not going to disagree with this bit...!

I agree that there is a lot of discord in the world. However, I think that your post could be used to promote a head-in-sand type approach. I would prefer to make a bit of a noise (though, being English, not too much noise and only politely).

10/11/2006 12:21:45 PM · #9

Originally posted by LoudDog:

655,000????

iraqbodycount.org (backed by antiwar.com and explained by Wikipedia) seems to think the number is less then 50,000 dead.

Yep - 50,000 deaths directly observed by 2 or more news agencies. ie an absolute minimum. Trying to establish a true estimate of the total losses (as opposed to an absolute minimum) requires a more sophisticated approach - hence the studies.

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

10/11/2006 12:24:27 PM · #10

Originally posted by milo655321:

The Iraqi War has just helped to create more extremists.

I dont believe this.

I believe the actions in Iraq and other places of late have crystalized and clarified those people and their regimes that were already of the mindset to terrorize others.

In many ways we have simply forced the hand of people on both sides of whatever fence they are on and..frankly..I would rather see people forced out into the open with whatever belief they hold dear than hiding in caves or churches or mosques or other incubators of intolerance.

People don't just wake up one day and say "Hmmm..those Americans, Japanese, British, South Koreans, Israeli's ..whoever..are Baaaaaaaad People..I am going to be a terrorist" People are pre-disposed to that behaviour before they actually perform the acts. There are millions of people all over the mid-east that do not become terrorists, even when faced with tragic personal loss.

Look at the backgrounds of the people performing much of the terrorism. They had a history of being involved or predisposed to this extremist mindset before they strapped 50 pounds of explosives to their body or drove a car into a crowd of people and detonated a bomb.

Message edited by author 2006-10-11 12:26:02.

srdanz

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

10/11/2006 12:31:11 PM · #11

Originally posted by hokie:

Look at the backgrounds of the people performing much of the terrorism. They had a history of being involved or predisposed to this extremist mindset before they strapped 50 pounds of explosives to their body or drove a car into a crowd of people and detonated a bomb.

I don't believe you said this. Please correct me if I'm taking it too much out of context, but I believe I am not.

You're saying that there are people genetically predisposed to terrorism? You mean, instead of sitting at their computers, uploading images from their daily shoot with DSLRs they are about to go, strap themselves with TNT and blow themselves up?

Please clarify.

Also, all of you people don't know what you're talking about. This is your problem. You think you know how you might feel under pressure but you have no idea. Try being in a situation where your life is in danger 24/7 (and not because of the terror level raised to orange, but because people around you keep dropping dead on a daily basis)

Constant death around you makes you realize that sooner or later it will be your turn, and that's what promotes those suicide attacks. Not sitting in front of the computer and reading about it.

milo655321

Nikon D70

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

10/11/2006 12:33:12 PM · #12

Originally posted by hokie:

I think I can actually agree with your statement. But wouldnâ��t you agree that the people predisposed to extremism have been encouraged to focus their attention at the U.S. due the Iraqi War when it may have focused elsewhere? (For instance, Osama bin Laden had previously fought the Soviets in Afghanistan with the help of U.S. arms, but turned his attentions directly to the U.S. in response to our building military bases on Saudi soil.)

10/11/2006 12:38:36 PM · #13

Originally posted by theSaj:

I think the war DID have numerous moral justifications.

Did it succeed? Probably not...so does success make the real difference? Probably. We won the war and lost the peace. (as per usual).

I think that (except for a very few) "better to die fighting than to live under tyranny" sentiments are more Hollywood than real life. Besides, I am not sure that it was the place of the US/UK to make that determination for the Iraqi people.

If that is the justification, it is contrary to international law (and in any other country the perpetrators would be subject to war criminal charges).

Originally posted by theSaj:

That all said, the number is tragic. Will the middle-east be able to gain freedom from the fascist and islamofascist elements controlling that region?

Fascists? When did they arrive?

As for the level of hatred in the Middle East for the West, what are you talking about? "Centuries"?! The area was largely controlled by England and France less than a century ago, and both nations have shared tremendous influence and very good relations with a large part of the Middle East subsequently.

The type of jihadic hatred that you speak about arose in the 1980s in Afghanistan, (ironically) sponsored by the West to undermine the Soviet invasion.

10/11/2006 12:45:21 PM · #14

Originally posted by hokie:

I would rather see people forced out into the open with whatever belief they hold dear than hiding in caves or churches or mosques or other incubators of intolerance.

Would you promote more and greater atrocities in your area, so that the people in yur community who are holed up in their places of worship might be better exposed for their intolerance?

While some people are more vulnerable than others (for many reasons, and lack of wealth and independent education must be two of the biggest factors influencing the spread of extremism in the M. East), I do not share your desire to expose them by killing and maiming millions in order to determine which of them is going to be the first to crack.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

10/11/2006 12:45:52 PM · #15

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by hokie:
Death is inevitable

I'm not going to disagree with this bit...!

I agree that there is a lot of discord in the world. However, I think that your post could be used to promote a head-in-sand type approach. I would prefer to make a bit of a noise (though, being English, not too much noise and only politely).

Head-in-the-sand approach to me would indicate a either a dogmatic faith in a very specific ideology or an ignorance to the reality of the world around us.

I would advocate neither although it seems these are the two behaviours we see most in the world today.

I simply say it is inevitable, in our current state of evolution, to kill each other. Unfortunately we live in a world I call "Clan of the Cave Bear". This means we have extreme variations of psychological evolution in the world..trying to co-exist.

On the extreme end we have cultures still rooted in Bronze age patterns of thought and understanding mostly in extremely remote areas of the world. On the opposite end of the spectrum we have the 21st centurians who represent the most advanced examples of human psychological developement..combining all that we know into new patterns of logical deduction.

We have a clash of these slices of evolutionary culture mainly brought about through advances in modern technology that allow us to be anywhere with anyone faster than ever before with the lowest barriers.

Simply put...it is inevitable that the more we push technology and power down toward the bronze age human mentality..the closer we push humanity to the brink of extermination. We are overstepping mans ability to adjust to challenges to established cultural dogma and opening the door for retaliation byt the keepers of the faith..before all of mankind can evolve to a similar understanding of the inevitable...we are all in this together.

Woah...my brain hurts from writing that!

Message edited by author 2006-10-11 13:01:05.

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

10/11/2006 12:53:15 PM · #16

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by LoudDog:
655,000????

iraqbodycount.org (backed by antiwar.com and explained by Wikipedia) seems to think the number is less then 50,000 dead.

Yep - 50,000 deaths directly observed by 2 or more news agencies. ie an absolute minimum. Trying to establish a true estimate of the total losses (as opposed to an absolute minimum) requires a more sophisticated approach - hence the studies.

Okay, so they talked to "nearly 1,850 families, comprising more than 12,800 people in dozens of 40-household clusters around the country" which is less then 5% of the population of Iraq (26 million) and of course none of them exagerated and none of the deaths were double or triple (or more) counted. They counted "629" deaths from those discussions. They then extrapolated the 629 over the population of Iraq and came up with 655K. You believe that statistically created imaginary number over news reports??? Since you seem to like stats, in order to beleive that numbmer you have to believe that 12 out of 13 civilian deaths in Iraq do not get reported by two or more sources!!!

10/11/2006 12:53:43 PM · #17

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by hokie:
I would rather see people forced out into the open with whatever belief they hold dear than hiding in caves or churches or mosques or other incubators of intolerance.

Would you promote more and greater atrocities in your area, so that the people in yur community who are holed up in their places of worship might be better exposed for their intolerance?

While some people are more vulnerable than others (for many reasons, and lack of wealth and independent education must be two of the biggest factors influencing the spread of extremism in the M. East), I do not share your desire to expose them by killing and maiming millions in order to determine which of them is going to be the first to crack.

I never said that killing and maiming is necessary. I simply acknowledge that when people are forced to publicly state/express their extremism...conflict and death is inevbitable based on observation of the history of man to this point.

"The first to crack" to use your own words..comes long before any killing. I can break down most people in simple debates over extended time..as I am sure you can being a lawyer :-) The internet is a perfect example which proves you can draw people out of their anonymity if given a chance to confront them without the filters of political correctness or social civility forced upon them.

Bring this same internet effect to face to face, real time society and you get the same effect. Unfortunately, people then use real explosives and guns versus simple verbal flames to attack their opponents.

10/11/2006 12:56:22 PM · #18

Originally posted by "milo655321":

No, inspiration and recruiting has been going on for decades quite strongly. As is easily seen by a cursory review of the terrorism since the 70's. Iran hostages, airplane hijackings, bombings of U.S.S. Cole and U.S. bases. The first WTC bombing. The second. There is a trend and it has been growing and will continue to grow. Some seem to think that 9-11 was a one time incident. It wasn't. It was in fact the second attempt on the WTC. The first failed. The second succeeded. The intent is to increase and intensify.

ALL OF THIS WAS BEFORE George W.'s war in Iraq.

Originally posted by "milo655321":

Of course we are....(perhaps "ensure" was a poor choice of words, "encourage" is more apt).

That said, the end result has been just that. Iraq is a honeypot. Nearly all Americans killed in acts of terrorism since 9-11 have been U.S. soldiers or civilians in Iraq (and Afghanistan).

Originally posted by "hokie":

Death is inevitable as long as people hate and covet others resources and are willing to use force to promote their ultimate ends.

With that in mind....I have run across very few innocents anywhere and if we want to view the cuprits most of us (including me at times) have no further to look than in a mirror at some point in their life.

Now that I have offended EVERYONE...:-/

Truth doesn't offend me... although it does at time convict me! ;-)

Originally posted by "milo655321":

The Iraqi War has just helped to create more extremists.

I concur with Hokie's thoughts. I heard that of the 650k, 75% were at the hands of terrorists and extremists. We've just created a catalyst to seperate the entities.

The real difference is that the whole region has been terrorized by these same extremists. The deaths are stemming from the fact that their is now an element fighting against theses extremists for freedom, democracy, and tolerance. And of course, the extremists who have long controlled the region forcing women to be slaves, killing anyone who doesn't adhere to their philosophy. So now that a large group is trying to break from those chains the islamofascists are simply doing what they've always done. Kill as many as necessary to put them back into "submission".

Of course the results are going to be horrific. We are dealing with a horrific group of people.

Originally posted by "milo655321":

Misquoted how?

Doesn't actually state that it has increased the threat to America. Has it become a cultivating ground. Of course, it's near by and they believe it to be winnable. The issue is we've brought things to a head and brought about engagement. Our enemies already engaged us on and an increasing and increasing level. We simply decided to choose the place of engagement. ONE OF THE CORE MILITARY PRINCIPLES OF ENGAGEMENT.

"United States-led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of
al-Qaâ��ida and disrupted its operations"

We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and
operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the
struggle elsewhere.

â�¢ The Iraq conflict has become the .cause celebre. for jihadists, breeding a deep
resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for
the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves,
and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry
on the fight.

link

THE ABOVE WOULD HIGHLIGHT THE NEED TO SUCEED. AND THE DANGER THAT IF WE SIMPLY PULL OUT IT WILL BE A CATASTROPHE. IF WE SUCCEED, IT WILL HELP REDUCE THE JIHADIST THREAT.

Message edited by Manic - url-ifying.

10/11/2006 01:00:33 PM · #19

Originally posted by hokie:

Head-in-the-sand approach to me would indicate a either a dogmatic faith in a very specific ideology or a ignorance to the reality of the world around us.

I would advocate neither although it seems these are the two behaviours we see most in the world today.

Interesting. I thought that your post could be taken as being "resignation in the face of the inevitable". I accept that man is confrontational and our leaders tend to be aggressive in a biological fashion, and there is therefore some biological imperative to conflict - but do not think that we need to succumb to that imperative.

I had not appreciated your point that we have societies with an undeveloped socio-legal-political structure, but who have the weaponry traditionally reserved to nations that have developed the structures necessary to contain its use. I think that this is a good point.

However, I disagree that there is an inevitability. In my opinion, the spread of advanced weaponry among less advanced nations would be best controlled by a strong demonstration of the application of the rule of law and respect for international law. I think that the very worse strategy (and the one that we appear to be falling into) is to adopt the mentality of the less advanced nation, and try to beat them at their own game (ie lawless conflict).

We cannot control the spread of the weaponry, so we have to try and advance the socio-legal-political status of the nations that are acquiring it.

10/11/2006 01:07:35 PM · #20

Originally posted by LoudDog:

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by LoudDog:
655,000????

iraqbodycount.org (backed by antiwar.com and explained by Wikipedia) seems to think the number is less then 50,000 dead.

Yep - 50,000 deaths directly observed by 2 or more news agencies. ie an absolute minimum. Trying to establish a true estimate of the total losses (as opposed to an absolute minimum) requires a more sophisticated approach - hence the studies.

Okay, so they talked to "nearly 1,850 families, comprising more than 12,800 people in dozens of 40-household clusters around the country" which is less then 5% of the population of Iraq (26 million) and of course none of them exagerated and none of the deaths were double or triple (or more) counted. They counted "629" deaths from those discussions. They then extrapolated the 629 over the population of Iraq and came up with 655K. You believe that statistically created imaginary number over news reports??? Since you seem to like stats, in order to beleive that numbmer you have to believe that 12 out of 13 civilian deaths in Iraq do not get reported by two or more sources!!!

80% provided death certificates.

This method of deriving statistics is in very broad use throughout the world. It is the best methodology available to us. The report has been peer reviewed (ie reviewed by experts in statistical analysis - people who can tell if the methodology is subject to the kinds of errors that you indicate, and these issues will undoubtedly have been taken into account) and the conclusions validated.

If 95% of the reporters are in Baghdad, then it seems very reasonable that 95% of the deaths go unreported. I made that statistic up, but the point is sound: reporters are not everywhere, nor do they report every death that they see or hear about. Where it is reported, the story may not be picked up if it is not newsworthy. This must be increasingly the case given the war-weariness of the general public.

10/11/2006 01:16:38 PM · #21

Originally posted by "srdanz":

You're saying that there are people genetically predisposed to terrorism?

I did not see ANYTHING regarding genetics. But education. Without a doubt. That region is pre-disposing it's children to extremism. They are doing it thru a dogmatic education. With textbooks that teach math with examples like: "You have 10 Jews. You shoot and kill 4 Jews. How many Jews do you have left?"

Originally posted by "srdanz":

Constant death around you makes you realize that sooner or later it will be your turn, and that's what promotes those suicide attacks.

Balogne. Suicide attacks often happen in areas where people are not dropping dead. I've heard that those perpetrating are poor uneducated peoples. That said, many have college degrees and access to millions of $$$.

That said, such methods are less common even rare in much poorer regions. (India, South America, etc.)

Originally posted by "milo655321":

As I've been following this issue for nearly 20 years. And since 9-11 was only 5 yrs ago. I answer this with a RESOUNDING "No!"

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

Actually many Iraqis did want that decision. Many did not. Many wanted it in a different fashion. The real problem with Iraq is you are trying to fit three different peoples (Sunni, Shiite, Kurd) into one bottle and hoping that a 1,000 years of tensions doesn't explode the bottle like a molotov.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

Fascists? When did they arrive?

Been around for years. In fact, we even removed one. Saddam Hussein's regime was a fascist regime.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

As for the level of hatred in the Middle East for the West, what are you talking about? "Centuries"?! The area was largely controlled by England and France less than a century ago, and both nations have shared tremendous influence and very good relations with a large part of the Middle East subsequently.

Correct me if I am wrong, but as I recall it. History shows that most of those regions became uncontrollable and the territories were lost. Perhaps surrendered because the economic costs of retaining them did not meet the economic benefits of retaining them.

And yes, in fact, I do blame much of this whole affair on Europe's handling and dividing of the lands.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

The type of jihadic hatred that you speak about arose in the 1980s in Afghanistan, (ironically) sponsored by the West to undermine the Soviet invasion.

There are accounts from much earlier. I forget the name but I remember reading about a British Colonel who dealt with such issues. His response was to capture 10. Kill 9 with bullets coated in pig fat. And bury them in pig entrails. Then send the remaining prisoner home. However, society doesn't have the guts to do such today. We are far to PC. In truth, we want to avoid being the monsters humans are so capable of being.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

10/11/2006 01:17:18 PM · #22

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

However, I disagree that there is an inevitability. In my opinion, the spread of advanced weaponry among less advanced nations would be best controlled by a strong demonstration of the application of the rule of law and respect for international law. I think that the very worse strategy (and the one that we appear to be falling into) is to adopt the mentality of the less advanced nation, and try to beat them at their own game (ie lawless conflict).

We cannot control the spread of the weaponry, so we have to try and advance the socio-legal-political status of the nations that are acquiring it.

I agree that your approach is the ideal. My point about being inevitable refers back to the extreme differences in cultural evolution and the conflict that will arise as these cultures collide.

I believe we simply do not have the capacity to control ourselves. Passions run too deep and misunderstandings too common.

Lets take the Muslim world as an example although I could apply the same conclusions to almost any other religion. Muslims MUST believe that Mohammand was THE prophet. There is not room for debate. You are either a believer in his word or not. The very fabric of the Muslim soul relies on the faith in Mohammad's words as irrefutable. That means intolerance by very definition. There is no room for ...
Baha'i Faith
Buddhism
Christianity Christian groups, denominations and
families (Amish to The Way)
Confucianism
Hinduism
Jainism
Judaism
Shinto
Sikhism
Taoism
or even Vodun (Voodoo)!

I would also say that most of the above religous faiths have a similar level of intolerance built into their practices and written words.

We could make a list of political systems as well and many people follow these "faiths" like a religion, including intolerance as an integral part of their own ideologies survival.

And in the end, that is the problem. People view their very survival not in accepting all humans as equal partners in our trip through the cosmos. People view their survival as being inexorably connected to their various dogmatic belief structures. The point of their very existence.

As long as we challenge the political and religous dogma of any group of people...their very existence is threatened and ..I believe..leads to violence.

deapee

Kodak V803

10/11/2006 01:20:30 PM · #23

Is this just an acceptable tragedy of living in a country that has been taken over by terrorist forces? How many people, Iraqi's or others, would have died from the terrorist leaders if the US never went over there?