Can you explain how a war against Iraq might discourage terrorist attacks against the United States?

nope

No, I cannot.

No,I can't.But if you want I can explain you how a war against Iraq can ENCOURAGE terrorist attacks against the United States.

There's a few ways. Firstly, any state that supports terrorism will now fear attack from the West. Secondly, if weapons of mass destruction are found and destroyed, it will be more difficult for terrorists to use these weapons. I'm sure the people who commit terrorist attacks and their supporters do not give a rat's about the Geneva Convention, and would not think twice about taking out a city full of infidels with a nuke.

Why is this survey categorised as a hypothetical question? What's hypothetical about it?

Yes, let's hear it. Remember of course that the US was attacked before this war started, and thousands of civilians were killed. How will this war make the attitude of Islamic fanatics who have always wanted to kill westerners any worse? As far I can see, the ordinary Iraqi people, not the soldiers or republican guard who stand to lose their positions, are happy this war has begun, as have the Kurds in the north. How will a war between the Kurds and their oppressors improve their position? Perhaps they won't be gased in the future. This is not just about terrorism. The argument that Hussein shouldn't be removed because it makes it hard for the west is selfish. I can't believe all of those peace protestors can want the west to sit back and let the Iraqi people be oppressed as long as their comfortable western lives are protected from retaliation.

No, and I think no-one can. This is not a war against terrorism, because there is no link between iraq and Al-Qaeda. Even CIA officials have admitted that to the New York Times.

But even if there was a link, this war wil only cause more hatred among muslim fundamentalists and it will confirm their suspicion against an agressive USA. They were willing to die for their beliefs before this war. Do you think this war will make them change their minds?

Firstly, any state that supports terrorism will now fear attack from the West.

Make that: the US.

Those peace protesters are against this war. This does not, I repeat: does NOT, automatically mean that they are pro-Saddam.

You are more clever than Bush, kaleb. So stop saying: "If you're not for us, you are against us." It's much more complicated than that.

Fear of reprisal? If I launched a terrorist attack on the US then they would come and kick my ass. If someone terrorist attacked me then I could not effectivly kick their ass.
The US gets attacked by some Muslim extremists and so there is a war and violence and such like.
The UK gets attacked by Irish terrorists and people applaud and send them money!

It's a fairly simple, straightforward link. Iraq has been assisting terrorists with training and weapons. With Iraq out of the terrorism business, even if there aren't fewer terrorists they will be less well trained and equipped.

Once again I agree with kaleb's comment an no time here.

It won't. Bush just wants a war.

I got a fair amount of heat over this in qualification. I was accused of bias, making a straw man argument...I really don't think I was doing anything of the sort. I quite simply was hoping that someone might be able to explain this to me. The letter in the link, which has been posted all over the net, isn't the only example I've seen of people trying to connect Iraq with the September 11th terrorist attacks. Maybe someone can enlighten me.

I'm not sure that I'm following you there. Isn't "state supported" terrorism the exception, rather than the rule? Isn't terrorism by its very nature, something that doesn't even require support? I mean, if I could get say 20 guys together that were willing to die for a cause, don't you think that we could probably put together a pretty fudging scary terrorist action just with whatever money we could scrape together and information that is widely available? Isn't that what terrorism really is?

Well,that's what "Islam" fanatics say themselves.I remember many Muslims that can actually be considered moderate saying (I remember the interview with an Arab,sorry can't remember exactly from where,living in Italy)that if Bush attacked Iraq EVERY muslim would start to organize and fight.Of course menaces and actually doing it are different,but looks like GOOD part of the muslim world is on this position.
I never talked about Iraq people.The problem is that while Saddam IS the problem,Saddam has very little to do (at least now) with terrorism.But both the US and the Arabs want to believe he does.
I never said this was just about terrorism.Is not about terrorism at all.That's something Bush uses for propaganda,and the terrorists themselves use for being popular amongst people.
I already said what my position on Iraq people is.The fact that Saddam is a monster doesn't make the war fair.

No, because it won't.

Good. Do you think terrorism is OK? Why shouldn't a country that supports it pay the price?

States support terrorism by harbouring terrorists, financing them, holding their money (Switzerland for instance), selling weapons, provifding safe passage etc. State sponsored terrorism doesn't just mean a state hiring a terrorist to perform an act. States can support terrorists even though they know nothing of the actual attack plans. I think it's well known that the 9/11 terrorists were well funded. They didn't work as far as I know, yet they were able to live in the US for long enough to be noticed by neighbours, take flying lessons etc. That all takes money. If you got those 20 together and perfomed a terrorist act then were hidden by a government, you are then supported by that government.

I hardly think it's not about terrorism at all. Of course the fear of Iraq, which has already threatened and planned an assasination of one US president, developing nukes or biological weapons then handing them to Al Qaeda plays some part. If you think it's about oil your deluding yourself. They could get a better oil deal if the just let Hussein retain power and delt with him. Why go to the expense of a war when Iraq needs and wants to sell oil to the west already?

Do you think that any Muslim that performs atrocities should be allowed to continue with their behaviour because to do anything about it would piss off all the Muslims? Get real. First of all there is no homogenous mass of Muslims. Remember that Iran and Iraq war? They were all Muslims, just different variations. Secondly, most reasonable Muslims want to live in peace, they just have these tyrants governing them and are surrounded with radicals. You might not like this but it takes two side to fight. Islam needs to give a bit too. If a Christian criminal is attacked by a Muslim, Christians don't stand behind the criminal just because he's Christian. That's insane, but apparently that's the Muslim way. That's a flaw they have. There's also the so called moderates who sit back and allow all of this to happen. If the KKK stirs crap under the name of Christ, using the cross etc, Blacks and others know they don't speak for all of Christendom because good Christians denounce them. In the Muslim world, fanatical Islamic groups are not denounced, they are encouraged. Who's fault is that? Muslims also hate Jews, and aparently Hindus (Pakistan - India conflict). It appears to me that it's the Islamic world with the problem, not anyone else. They claim to be a religion of peace, but I can't see that.

I can't believe you are saying we should ignore the behaviour of a bunch of bloodthirsty oppressors because it's going to piss off a lot of people with huge chips on their shoulders. Do you think it's Ok to say buy oil from Iraq or do you want the sanctions to continue? Do you think we should ignore the rape, torture and murder of Iraqi citizens because it places us in danger from a bunch of insane fanatics that have always hated the west and wanted to kill westerners? God, this has been going on since the Moors. George Bush hasn't started anything. What a simple view of the world.

There is no proof Iraq supports this. Even CIA officials have told this to the NY Times.

I didn't ask you what state sponsored terrorism is. I know what it is. My point was that most terrorism isn't, and needn't be, state sponsored. After you're done, if you aren't dead, you hardly need to go around announcing the fact every time you cross a border.

I know that everyone seems to think that the September 11th thing was financed and planned by others, but the fact is; it didn't need to be. Those guys could have quite feasibly done it all by themselves. If they did, I hardly think that anyone would be admitting it though. It would kind of put a damper on the righteous retribution wouldn't it?

i really doubt that it will. again, this war will probably not make us any safer, if not less safe. i doubt that there is much of a huge connection between terrists and sadam.

I can't explain it because it won't. If anything, it will have the opposite effect.

Sorry, no.

Terrorists live and exist with freedom in many countries. That's state sponsored in that the state is obviously not opposed to it. Not all terrorists are suicide bombers. Take Bali for instance. The Indonesians didn't really seem to care until the Australian Feds got in there and tracked mobile calls for them and triangulated them escaping on a bus west of Jakarta.

The (/11 thing had a lot more people behind it than just the guys that crashed the planes. There is a large network in Germany, some of which have been arrested. If they are Al Qaeda, they have links to Saudi Arabia because this is where Bin Laden was financed from. Sure it was his own money but he doesn't walk around with a couple of Billion in his robe. Banks in some states are supporting terrorists, a fact I'm sure the governments of those states know. 9/11 hasn't been the only terrorist attack either.

Besides all of that, don't you think it's incredibly selfish and racist to ignore the plight of the Iraqi people? Wouldn't the US take some action if the Canadian people were under a blanket of fear? If you saw people in the streets of Vancouver having their tongues cut out and bled to death for speaking out against your government would you expect the UN and the world to take action or would you rather live under such a dictatorship as long as those terrible Americans stay the hell out of your country? No one seemed to oppose going into Kosovo hand sorting that genocide out, but then again they were white.

I'm not quite saying that. I want to know what the alternatives are that you think are better options.

As far as I see it, there are three options.
1. Keep trading with Iraq, allowing Hussein to gain financially from interaction with western countries that respect human rights in their own countries but are quite comfortable supporting a regime that does not as long as we get oil. THAT'S about oil, not the war.

2. Apply sanctions to Iraq, stop trading with them, although he aparently still traded oil with the Turks, and pipes it to Syria. It was really only oil tankers that were prevented from leaving. During the sanctions, the oil for food program allowed limited sales of oil in order to buy food and medicine. That didn't happen, Hussein used oil revenue to support his own position and purchase weapons and amunition, and, supposedly create thousands of litres of chemical weapons and support his republican guard etc. Sanctions were opposed by the same people who oppose the war.

3. Since the Iraqi people are too terrified to overthrow Hussein themselves (opponents have their tongues cut out in public) and the country is full of Hussein's spies and informants, opposition is quickly removed. Only an external force is able to remove this dictator, that's the west because no one else has the means. This is clearly not about oil. The first option is about oil. If all the west was interested in was oil we could still trade with Hussein and say "to hell with the Iraqi people".

I can't see any other option. If we sit back and wait for the Iraqi people to act, we could be allowing hundreds of thousands more to die under this regime for as long as he and his sons are in control. So, yes, you are either for the last option or you support one of the other two, unless you know of another one. So, which is it?

That is a good question. 20 years ago I would have answered with assasination and taking over their media.
I don't know what answer I'd suggest for internal regime change if the locals wanted it.
Seems to me that even a march of 300000 troops upon the capital without tanks, planes or missles would have worked if the public were so against their tyrant.
Even with a corrupt pseudo-democracy (say the US or AUS had become one), it's hard to imagine how you would handle a regime change, if the electorate was bought out and machination for reporting impeachment popularity was tweaked.

The people have also been told that the US is Satan. I don't think many Iraqis are sophisticated enough to determine reality from religious fanaticism and propaganda. If they were well educated and world wise I don't think it would take 30,000 coalition troops.

My girlfriend was from Iraq. She grew up watching the american primetime soap opera 'Dallas'. Yes, saddam does equate israel and it's US support to satan practically. I think it's at least fair to say that those forces stand against the existing culture. Equating forces that would end your way of life with satan isn't too great an abstract association if you see things in religious terms. Obviously it's not true and doesn't help, but I see where they get it from.
I think I'd have to live there for a year or two to really understand it. I expect it's both educated and makes sense when you're submersed in the understanding. People do live in different pardigms. People who see wars as an answer and those who see peaceful being as an answer live in different world understandings. Most any person or culture can say things would be alright if just everyone were just like us. But then that's not really true. If one is violently competitive, having everyone else be the same is still going to cause problems.

I don't think people want everyone to be like they are. It's more like they want to be left alone to decide for themselves how they live. Religious zealots and insane dictators sort of stifle that in people.

Nope, I've been puzzling over that one myself!

Perhaps I should say people want anyone they have to deal with to be like them. No, I go back to what I orginally said. We have greens, fundamentalists, all sorts who want to suggest how the entire country should operate even when it does not directly affect them. 'Not like us' is our predominant excuse for war, though we phrase it in slightly different terms.

Well, not really, because I don't think that it will discourage terrorist attacks. I think if somebody is completely willing to die for their cause, there isn't a lot you can do about it.

I think sometimes it's a perception of a threat to the way we live. If you enjoy riding bikes and reading tarot and there are a bunch of people moving into your neighbourhood that believe those things are evil, would you be concerned? What if one of these anti-bike riding/tarot reading people became mayor? Suppose your trips to Alaska were limited to one per 10 years because the US government was Green Party, and placed restrictions on travel that used fossil fuels. Would you mind that? 'Not like us' isn't only the reason. It's more like 'not like us and they want to make us like them'. That's why I think apartheid in some situations may be the only solution. In an ideal world, everyone could live side by side in peace, but I seriously don't ever see that happening in Israel with the Palestinians. The Irish still have a grudge against the English that is over 600 years old, and that goes beyond race or religion since they’re all white and many share the same religion.

I think it's fair enough that there are people who want to suggest how the entire country should operate even when it does not directly affect them, so long as it’s a suggestion. My problem is when the majority of people are told what to do and how to act by a minority. I'm talking ideologically, not racially or culturally. I also have a problem when an ideology is based on flawed or absent science. Do you believe the American people would vote for Kyoto in a referendum if they were told of ALL the facts surrounding the global warming theory, as well as the cost/benefit to an average person? Ideology based solely on religion is problematic also. Some religions believe gambling is bad, others believe eating meat is bad. That's OK for them, but they shouldn't try to force their beliefs on everyone else. It's back to the old idea that people should be free to do what they want so long as they don't adversely affect other people. This is why I consider abortion more than an ideological argument. Surely the elimination of another human life breaks the 'freedom to act so long as that act does not adversely effect another' philosophy. I believe in freedom of choice. If you want to worship turnips that’s OK with me, but I object to being told my eating of turnips rather than worshipping them is offensive behaviour that must be changed. Just leave me alone to make up my own mind. Sure you can try to convince me, but in the end it should be my choice. From what I can see, most Muslims don’t behave this way. They try to force their ways on others. I’ve even read of a pre-school in London where the story of the 3 Little Pigs has been banned by the head teacher (a non-Muslim) because this story might somehow offend the Muslim kids. In the west, it always seems to be our culture that must change. Imagine what would happen if an American or Australian living in the Middle East tried to change the way Islamic people live through legislation because part of their religion offends. We would have to change there too.

I wouldn't quite suggest apartheid, but i do have a libertarian quality and believe a system could exist in which everyone is free to pursue their own culture. I also believe in local rights over national rights, so if a great majority of a community wants to be nudist or worship turnips, that should be their choice. Minority rights count too when it's just the minoritys affected.
Abortion can't be argued in the same vein though, because there are differing understandings which place the arguement itself in differing domains. Unborn children are likened by some as meat, not a right to unimpeded life issue.

Minority rights are fine, as long as people who choose not to be nudist or worship turnips don't have to. I think abortion should be treated with the precautionary principle. This principle is often used as justification for limiting development by Green groups. It's also used in the Kyoto Protocol because there is no real science to back it. It states that when an outcome is unceertain it is best to take the most precautionary option. With global warming it is assumed that option is to reduce CO2 emissions. With abortion, one would assume since the argument seems to be over when a human becomes a human, it would be more precautionary if the option that was not absolutely negative for the unborn child was taken until abortionists can prove a human suddenly becomes human one second after midnight on the 12th week and before that it was nothing more than a tumor. The hypocritical thing about abortionists is that generally they are also the people who apply the precautionary principle to the environment. Aparently human life means less to them than the rest of the planet and other life forms. This shouldn't be surprising. Many environmentalists are misanthropic. Even the Nazis developed some of the first national parks, animal rights and many were vegetarian. You can imagine them picking over their vegetarian meal by the light of a human pelvis lamp.

precautionary - another useful concept. Oddly, the anti-abortionists seem to be keenest on capital punishment. I find it strange that environmentalists and pro-life aren't allied. I could speculate that that's because they figure humans are at fault for the worlds problems, but I doubt that's it. It could be hedonism and they want a green disneyland planet. I suspect though that it's purely arbitrary; that miscelaneous progressive concepts at all ends of the spectrum simply got packaged together in the same crowd. Perhaps people don't even ask themelves why they believe what they do.

The Green Disneyland planet opens up a pandoras box of conspiracy theories involving the fact that HIV infects people of African decent easier than other races. It's been said that soon Africa could become a world park once the people are gone. We even had an AIDS charity advertising on TV here saying the most endangered species in Africa was humans. I remember thinking that there were many environmentalists who probably see that as a good thing.

I don't think people ask why they believe what they do. I was discussing this at work. Many of the protestors who demand an immediate withdrawal from the war are also the ones who blame the US for the gassing of the Kurds and the killing of the southern Shia Muslims by Hussein in retribution of their support for his overthrow after the west withdrew in '91 but promised to return and help. This same genocide of the Kurds would occur if we withdrew now, yet these protestors can't see that. I hate war, but let's be relistic. It's as if logic has been taken from the planet. These people are the same ones who were against the failed sanctions, so aparently they approve of the pre-sanction-status quo in Iraq when Hussein and his associates raped, murdered and tortures political opponents. Sometimes I want to get off this planet. There has to be a place where things make sense.

Had you heard of the precautionary priciple? I hope you get something out of our convos. I do. I think you have made me think a bit deeper. I got a feeling the other day that it doesn't matter what happens here because this is just a transitionary phase, and all I can do is try to put a (what I consider) logical view forward.I think you have another mission, or should I say angle - rational in a calm way. I tend to get frustrated.

I can see why the anti-abortionists are pro-capital punishment. It's because the two lives are so different. One is completely innocent, the other is not. I think the pro-life people could also be called pro-human, which is probably why they agree with the execution of people who take human life. I know it seems illogical, but I think it comes back to the innocent life vs murderers.

The pro-choice people seem to be very anti-choice in most of their other beliefs. I guess it's just political spin to use the names they choose, after all the anti-choice and pro-death movements would find it harder to attract members.

Yeah, I can't see joining one of those two orgs. I see the opposite of things embedded in each other. I see a military component to many peace protestors. There is a constant yin-yang going on, and a push in one direction flushes out it's opposite. I also don't see that we were ever better or worse off in centuries or millenia past. I may be mellow, but the down side is that I can fall into feelings of futility. I go back and forth on whethar actually changing anything is a passionate delusion of the ego or not, and if it is, what then is our role here. Increasingly I see our purpose simply to make our own experience beautiful within our own surroundings and as far as anyone we can touch. I've looked into the future, and even when we could have anything our minds could conjure for everyone, and have bodies of nanotechnology, wars and virus plagues exist no less than in the bubonic plague days. Humanitarian efforts fail. The planet could usually spread it's wealth to help the entire planet, and never does. I conclude that that life is not about ever finally fixing it, but coming down for visits to experience indefinite suffering and charity. Every generation has to learn from scratch the lessons the prior generation could have taught them. I suppose whenever we finally figure out we can do or what's it about, we die, and let others play from scratch. I suppose the latest war has made me more jaded and fatalistic than in times past.

I just can't believe the lack of logic from everyone, the hypocrisy of violent peace protests, the call to kill people who don't believe in the same religion as you, a religion that supposedly teaches peace. Are people getting more stupid?

It does seem that way, doesn't it. It's a big shake up, but i think if could look deeper, you would find everyone was already on the same course, and this is just a way for people to show their true colors, as to which are really violent, which are peaceful, which think for themselves, and which follow whatever the popular notions are. It's just more extreme is all. Culture, at least here in the US, has been a bit dormant lately and I suppose people were up for anything, good or bad, that constituted some activity or change.
The internal violence is a mirror of the external violence. Alas, I don't expect many people to recognize such forces at work. No one ever claimed times of war were logical that I know of. So far, the most logical at the moment seem to be the war hawks who don't pretend to have ethical reasons. Logic combined with ethics is somewhat of a rarity in this age. I blame the dark side of capitalism for that one. For the most part, we have increasingly been in the habit of rewarding pirates. Come to think of it, I think we always have as far back as history goes. We reward true heros to humanity too, but not nearly as much. Consequently, I'd say humanity is getting what it's brought upon itself, as innocent or ignorant as that may be. The only answer I can think of is one where everyone selflessly contributes to active participation in a democracy so large that their is no room for the corrupt to stand, but people are lazy and self-absorbed until forced otherwise, and corrupt leaders know this and perpetuate it to their advantage. All religions that I know of teach peace if you become intimate with them, but people see only what they want to see. If you were to ask anyone, they would tell you that their experiences back up their beliefs, even if they all believe something different. The tower of babel seems to be one of lifes perpetual forces. Some people think a common faith could cure this, but the reality is that even their neighbors of the same faith don't actually believe quite the same thing. If people worked more on 'love your neighbor' than 'fear your enemy' we might be in a better place. We jump directly to (negatively) doing something about not getting along without first (positively) addressing the why we're not getting along in the first place. It's always been stupid. The world would have become a utopia back in the golden age if that were different.

I guess what's frustrating is how the morons back up their illogical arguments with religious type fanaticism. They make a statement and back it up with "we're just right because we are" and anyone who disagrees is automatically a racist or an environmental criminal or (shock horror) a Christian or capitalist! Their cause seems to permit them (at least in their minds) to act in ways that contradict what they say they stand for because they apparently believe the ends justify the means. We've seen it with the violent peace protests. I also had a quite public argument in a local newspaper with a Green PArty representative who wrote a letter complaining about the traffic on the freeway she used every day to attend the Green Party office in the city. She was saying that there was so much traffic because people weren't using public transport. I basically called her a hypocrite who expects everyone else to change the way they live while she continues as always. She basically said that her cause permitted her to act in a way that contradicts what she says she stands for. How can you argue with madness like that?

Why shouldn't we aim for utopia? Why expect such stupidity from people who place themselves in positions where they can dictate what everyone else must do? I think those with some logic left should publicly humiliate these fools as often as possible until they go back to growing pumpkins or whatever they did before they got an idea in their little heads.

'ends justifies the means' you're just full of right-on-the-mark concept observations these days (oh, btw, I knew and used the precautinary concept, I just never had it spelled out before). You can't argue with such madness. People don't see past their noses sometimes. I still aim for utopia, but I increasingly see the odds I am up against. Adding humility to the broth won't help, just as violent protests of violence won't help. We have to replace wrong with right, not just add more wrong. I've just been comparing faiths with two christians here, or rather just one, because the other just barks about heaven and hell no matter what I try to discuss. I found it quite tempting to take the pumpkin approach. Even backing up my 'absurd notions' with popular christian scripture was a step in that direction that I was practically forced into.

Yes, replace wrong with right. Idiocy with logic. I think the concept of leading by example is the way. I saw video of a confrontation between some Iraqis and American soldiers on a street in front of a Mosque. The Iraqis thought the Americans were going to enter the Mosque, but they weren't. There was a a lot of tension, particularly coming from the Iraqis. The Commander told his soldiers to point their weapons down, back off and sit down, then smile. The situation defused almost immediately, with the help of a Shi'ite cleric. This cleric has since put out a fatwa (spelling?) where he has told all Shi'ites in Iraq not to obstruct the coalition in any way. I also saw vision of British soldiers playing soccer with Iraqis. I think this might turn out OK if the west acts like this, not telling people how to live, but showing how good it can be under democracy and a free society (as free as it's going to be in this physical world).

Yes, some Christians have very closed minds, especially "old" Christian faiths like the Catholics who seem just plain superstitious to me. Some newer Christian faiths like the Mormons seem to ask more questions, and at least try to answer some. Religion shouldn't be "Woooo.....scary". I think it should be logical and make sense. I hate the superstition. There's also the black and white belief that you either go to heaven, and you have to be a goody-2-shoes-no-life to qualify, or you burn in hell for all eternity. Yes, there's a few pumpkin pickers that need to get back in the field.

You know I have a life full of mystical/occult experiences, and I think some people are scared of what they do not understand. Although even christian sects are full of tales of miracles and mysticism, the majority would panic and deny such events. I mightget along with catholics a bit better because they believe in saints with supernatural powers, but the distinction between mortals and saints seems to be a rather taboo subject. It's almost like you're not allowed to explore such subjects unless you emerge as someone well accoplished in them. It's like only the naughty rebels have a shot at divinity.
Well, I attended a lecture of presidential hopeful congressman Kucinich today and left documents of my platform measures for him. Tonight I plan to write some speech material to offer him. His primary platform is lead the way to end all war now. He shares many other ideas I have been building over the years too.
It generally takes two sides to fight. That was what gandhi conveyed. I hear the arab world relates to saddam as david standing up to goliath, and part of me wants to honor that. I would stop short of violence, but the question remains (in all general situations), what do you do when nothing else works? One strategy is just to let anyone invade, and become part of them, flow with the changes. The interesting thing is that as we conquer Iraq, Islamic awareness/understanding propogates through our own culture, as in, you are what you eat.

I find that many Christians that accept such things as miracles etc, as they appeared in the Bible are afraid of such things if they occur today, as if they are not dure where the power truly comes from. It's like in Catholicism where people used to be possesed by demons are now suffering schizophrenia. Who's to say schizophrenics aren't visited by demons because their bodies aren't producing a certain chemical which leaves them open to invasion by other spirits? It seems like science and religion can't exist for many Christians, and of course other religions.

Going with the flow of invasion is fine if you are sure the invaders will make your life better. I can't see how any invaders of Australia could do that, although I can see how Australia's liberation of East Timor from Indonesia has helped them gain freedom, even if that freedom is to have political brawls as the power struggle continues. I sometimes feel like some people are just too childlike for democracy. It's as if they like being dictated to. It's been said that the sociology of the ISlamic world is hundreds of years behind the west. I think I might agree. Any time a primitive society is forced into modernity there is upheaval. Sure Iraq has modern hospitals, communications etc, but I see them as being socially primitive. Can you imagine what would happen if the US put a woman in charge over there?

Yes, countries are what they eat. The Jewish immigrants in the US have a huge impact. The fact that they have a different faith makes for good situation comedy. I think that's a fundamental difference between the Jews and Islam. Being able to laugh at yourself, like the west often does, is a sign of strength. Islam not only lacks that inner strength, but their demeanor and defensiveness makes it easier for the west to ignore them or try to anyway. I think when we see our first ISlamic sit-com, like The Nanny or Seinfeld were Jewish comedies, we will have a sign of social cohesion in the west with our Islamic immigrants. Being Jewish is nothing, like being Methodist. The fact that people feel they must be careful around Muslims is a sign they aren't integrated yet.

I still go for the parallel realm explanation (which still doesn't include demon possessions), but that gap is being bridged as at least the mind-body connections is being realised.
Kucinich turned out to be the sort I admire, asking us to clap for ourselves and glad to be a participant. That didn't get nearly the applause as his calls to visions, like the reinstatement of our constitutional rights. My conclusion is that few genuinely want to contribute to a democracy and want someone else to do it for them, even in the most democracy oriented of crowds. They want a leader to do everything for them.
I mentioned a year or two ago (time flies) that Aus. seems to be 30 years behind the US in some respects. I was reminded of that when you commented on the activism and extremism of party views there. It was like that here in the early 70's but became apathetically middle of the road since. The media is all middle of the road, and people aren't too socially active here except for entertainment, so it makes sense. A movement has to have an absolutely intense publicity stunt to be heard of around here.
Jews can afford to laugh at themselves. I saw shops full of things like sesame-street minorahs. It was quite surreal.

I'm not familiar with Kucinich. A benevolent dictator might be OK I guess, so long as they are approachable and listen to their subjects. The problem is that power corrupts. I guess I hope if Jesus really does come back to rule things will be OK . If you've got to have a dictator I guess he'll do.

I'm not sure Australia is 30 years behind the US. Australia went through a lot in the 70's too. It's more like we're on slightly different wavelengths. Then again, from what I've heard from BrianW, it sounds like the US may be either behind the rest of the world or just so different. One of the most active movements is the Green one, and that's fairly new everywhere, only in the US it doesn't seem to have the radical edge that every other western country has. Australia has had its period of both major parties looking exactly like each other. We came through that when a radical right party shocked the country back from the left where everyone thought they were at center. The Green party gained support in response, and we now have a more polarised two majors. Europe has been through the same. I think the US is yet to get radical, left or right. I think the US media is incredibly censored and restricted. It's not free at all. Your two major parties have it all sewn up.

Sesame St Minorahs - I love it!

Dang, I just dug through my calendar, seems I screwed up on my #'s. On Sunday, spirit told me I was supposed to be at church that afternoon, bit I dismissed it as meaingless. Turns out that speech by Noam Chomsky I wanted to hear was at the church that afternoon.
Power doesn't always corrupt. I can imagine dark ages barons holding together a castle of stores for hard times and administrating agriculture and holiday festivities all with the collective interest of his society in mind.
Political activism here came as the hippies grew up, but most of them settled down to routine business lives. The two generations that followed seem to have resigned themelves that change is not possible, so just ignore or adopt the system as most suits a personal life of gain and entertainment.
There is a bill to open the media to broader campaigns, but as I read it, it only seems to perpetuate that sewn up you mention. I'm disenchanted at how much of this beauracracy seems to be pure facade. I visit new programs on the web, which merely serve as a communications umbrella to other organizations which do the same until you come full circle and realize that no active program exists. It's like the someone else do it, people want to hear that the programs exist, but they don't follow up to see if it's true. Perhaps my experience simply slipped though the cracks though because of my cynical expectations.

You need a real personality to come forward with a third party that says what ordinary people are saying. I think the worst problem the US has is money given to politicians from lobbiests. You need to have a set limit for campaigns and a set limit for air-time for each party, but then so do we. Was Noam Chomsky at your church?!

Yes, Noam was there. Fortunately his speech was also rebroadcast later on my radio station and I caught it on tape.
I have plans to convert everything to a democracy which bypasses buying decisions entirely.

Maybe if somehow people were made aware that when they vote they are buying a president because they pay for his/her decisions in the end. Capitialism is the ultimate democracy because people won't pay more than something's worth and they will always look for a better product/price. If people realised that when they vote democrat (I assume the democrats act like our left of centre Labor Party) for instance, they are more likely to be paying for consultants, glossy brochures that tell what each government department is GOING to do, more consultants, select committees etc rather than real action, people would think twice.

You got the parties right: Left(Democrats) - pretend to do something, Right(Repulicans) - undo things.
Capitalism is not the ultimate democracy when things like the media can be bought, and 90% of the nations wealth is the hands of 1% of the population. At best, in that demograph, all we can hope for is that the rich keep in mind that the poor should have some means of making money to support the rich. In recent decades, corporations have been seeing they can make more money hiring overseas. They also pay a third of the taxes that they did a couple of decades ago. Sometimes congress gets crazy ideas like banning tax evading corporations from operating in the US, but which candidates are these corps going to back?
I still think I'l take my chances on fake programs over an attitude of no programs. I'd rather see a system where instead of taxes, everyone volunteers 7 hours a month to civil service and gets something done that matters to them.
Nothing works when people vote blindfolded. Oh that would make a funny comic, our lady blindfolded lady of justice with the scales wearing a 'vote' banner.
We live in an age where organic food producers are being banned from describing their products because it might be disfavorable to manipulated foods.
I found the yin/yang white/dark horse relationship of my bro and I interesting. While I am sending peace proposals to a congressman, he is sending weapons enhancements to a lieutenant. I had also had the thought the day before that I would be a great weapon designer except I don't believe in such involvement. For every one of me out there, I'm sure the world turns out another of him in kind. Part of what makes it interesting is that we can both attribute our views to what we learned from our parents. Like I can say support all religions, and he can say support no religions, as we concluded from our budhist hindu baptist minister step-father. Seen as evolution and the dialectic, how understandings are passed on could be an interesting science. It's like we pass on a mix of dominant and recessive genes of world-view.

I agree that globalisation is flawed because it is unsustainable. There needs to be gobalisation of environmental and workers rights and pay for globalisation to be fair. Economic "rationalism" is unsustainable in the long run. We've almost passed it here. Everything in privatised, and these private companies kept laying off thousands of employees in order to prop up the bottom line. This looked OK from a shareholders' perspective until the lack of staff affected service, and customers began voting with their feet. Those companies that lost market share were forced to employ more staff and provide better service. Here, capitalism did work. When capitalism tries to take advantage of currency differences and unequal labor and environmental laws, it fails. Soon there will be an adjustment however when all the jobs move overseas and the people who are the purchasers of goods lose the capital to do so because the jobs have gone. Perhaps this might be avoided though. In Australia, as in the US, we have moved from Primary and secondary industries to tertiary and now quartery, information industries as manufactiring and primary production was moved overseas. It still could work even with currency discrepancies, although environmental and labor laws need to be universal.

We have competition laws here that would prevent moves by one company to block the means of another to make money. Those organic food producers would win any case they brought to court under Australian law. There's another point you should push with your politician. Small business would eat that up with a spoon.

Perhaps your bro's designs are aimed at gaining peace. Imagine a DNA seeking bomb that could be targetted for Hussein only. All you would need would be a strand of hair taken by an insider without the regime knowing. Such a weapon would have ended the war on day 1, although I doubt any world leader in their right mind would make details of such a weapon public. Imagine the consequenses of that! You could set mini DNA seeking bullets to search for those with Arab genes, or genes for white skin, then just fire these bullets continually into the air over a city. Wow, I just got a horrible feeling that there might actually be scientists somewhere working on this.

What you get from your parents is basically down to individual perception. Your brother perceived one teaching, you another. The truth is there were probably both being taught under different circumstances.

My bro's coming from an ideology as old as cain and abel. Peace can't ultimately be gained on a foundation of battle. But yes, peace is his goal. We started talking about religion, which he abhors as separating people and creating wars. Because he refuses to even become familiar with the terms, he thought he was atheist when he is more of an agnostic / new thought / slightly new-age ish. I had to express how I see it as an intriguing exchange of science extending into more intriguing domains of reality and enjoy sharing with people the common denominators. His view is believe whatever you want to, but don't express any sort of identity. He agreed with me though that human nature was such that if religious concepts were removed as a source of separatist identity, then political ideology would take that place, then philosophy, culturalism, subjective vs objective outlooks, sand geologists vs rock geologists... I pointed out the time that that teacher started a race war between her students based solely on eye color to demonstrate such.
Pentagon scientists are working on that technology (not combined with bullets as far as I know, but with missles would make sense). Almost undoubtedly the result will be that it will sold to other nations, then leaked to others nations, a bit more primitive which can only create viruses that narrow attack down globally to a particular generic genetic trait. The military dominance paradigm will always have a tragic trickle down effect.
My bros design was a good one. Smart engineers run in our family. I used to design weapons as a hobby when I was younger myself. It's an intriguing field if you ignore the death part of it all.
It's the zen thing which gets me, just how close to home evidence is that I can't be one side of an issue without the opposing equivalent also coming into being. I see why the great sages of recent centuries just sat on a pillow in a temple and didn't even bother to attempt ending world strife. I saw that equanimity appear in all I did, and was left without a reason to do anything. I hoped the peace movement would be different.
Yeah, there's our native perception, and as I so often point out, even in close quarters, we each get our personal universe. The miracle in the lab occurs everytime the scientist turns his head away sort of thing.
What I know of you is very much like my brother, particularly the worldview and reaction style and such.

Your brother's view is kind of what religion in the west is. You can be religious, but people don't like it shoved in their face so you live it inside. I agree that's what religion should be - more a personal thing between you and God. Yes, without religion to divide, people will search for other ways to revert to tribalism. I'm not sure that's a good reason to encourage religious identification because the less differences people have the less likely we are to fight. There are enough differences to fight over without creating artificial religious differences.
I heard the Israelis were working on a virus that attacks a gene specific in Arabs - pretty ironic for a group of people who constantly hide behind the holocaust as a reason for immunity from attack by other ideologies. I don't know if you've ever read the magazine Janes' Defence Weekly. It's a British magazine that many governments subscribe to, and is available to the general public. It basically discusses new weapons technology, gives reviews, talks about estimated kills, range, weights etc. It is amazing, and of course disgusting at once. They probably have a site.

By comparing me to your brother, are you complimenting me or not?

I can see and respect his points without personally believing in them. His views have no bearing on our friendship.
He told me to check out globalsecurity.org . I haven't been there yet, but it sounds like it would interest you. Israeli's remain one one side of a battle which continues for the most part. From what I hear, their military science is rather advanced. The relationship between the ancient kaballah and nuclear and nanotech sciences is something they know in high school there.
'Shoved in ones face' is exactly the phrase he used.

I was going to buy a book on the Kaballah but I just don't have the time to read it at the moment. There's a great bookshop in the city with every different type of religious book you can imagine. I'll have a look at globalsecurity.org.

Books vary widely. So many of them are like turn-of-the-century armchair philosophers rambling on about qualities of ethics. The more interesting ones (to me anyhow) have a sacred geometry and metaphoric alphabet emphasis to them. It's quite a complicated field to get into, and might be akin to a scientist studying poetry. It's more like the hybrid of computer programming, poetry, and symbolic meaning.

Yeah, the Bible code is connected to the Kaballah somehow.

Hebrew is a language not unlike asian languages in which eachcharacter represents archetypal concepts. They can then run math on these concepts. I think it came from a former phonician (phonetic) capability to take strings of characters representing navigation constellations, and run them through the appropriate time/season math to plot a course on the high seas.

Hmm, another thing to learn....

The kaballah and the roots of the hebrew language are almost inseperable for a complete understanding. Without it, it would be like learning about computer interfaces without studying math or touching programming languages on a computer.

I'll keep that in mind