Support NeoGAF

[xsarien]

DOn't worry Pheonix, Tommy's crazy.

Don't have to tell me twice.

All people should be given a chance to exist. Don't want to have children don't have sex it is that simple. Once you agree to the contract of sex you agree to the responsibility that comes with it. Abortions are the cowards way out of the most serious situation in life.

You might wanna throttle back the didactic bullshit there, Tommy. It'll help you see that something as complicated as sex can never be so black and white.

 

[DarienA]

Pro-lifers are so.... fervent.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

Please validate. I've heard this mentioned before but I've never seen anyone validate it and it goes against basic economics.

- In Florida, each execution costs the state $3.2 million, compared to $600,000 for life imprisonment.


* North Carolina: The death penalty costs $2.16 million more per execution than the cost of a non-death penalty murder case with life imprisonment (Duke University, May 1993)

* Texas: a death penalty case costs an average of $2.3 million, about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. (Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992)

* California: In Los Angeles County, an average death penalty case costs $2,087,926, vs. $1,448,935 for life imprisonment without possibility of parole—cost of the death penalty in California


I can keep going but, I think you get my point. If you don't want to debate the religious aspect (not you specifically but as in if you want to look at it from another angle) you can argue the cost. The death penalty is not cost effective.

Definitely false. If you end the life of a child before birth you have absolutely no idea what kind of person you are killing, what their potential is, whether or not they can rise from their birth circumstances and do something better - possibly even moreso than those who were born to 'loving caring parents'. There are plenty of orphans that go on and do much more than sit around and collect wellfare.

I agree 100% but, if you don't want your baby why should I? If someone wants to have an abortion by all means feel free. I personally don't really care. That doesn't mean I don't think it morally not the right thing to do.

You might wanna throttle back the didactic bullshit there, Tommy. It'll help you see that something as complicated as sex can never be so black and white.

I don't see it that way. I'm just relating one of the arguments. That isn't personal view.

 

[Phoenix]

- In Florida, each execution costs the state $3.2 million, compared to $600,000 for life imprisonment.


* North Carolina: The death penalty costs $2.16 million more per execution than the cost of a non-death penalty murder case with life imprisonment (Duke University, May 1993)

* Texas: a death penalty case costs an average of $2.3 million, about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. (Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992)

* California: In Los Angeles County, an average death penalty case costs $2,087,926, vs. $1,448,935 for life imprisonment without possibility of parole—cost of the death penalty in California

Interesting statistics, but I don't see how they arrive at those numbers. Why is the cost of a death row inmate higher than that of a regular inmate? If I keep more people in jail, I have to house, feed, and care for them. The longer I keep them in jail, the more money I have to spend. In addition, a jail has a finite capacity. The more people I keep in jail, the more jails I have to build. There seem to be many statistics not accounted for in growing the fixed costs of prisons.

I agree 100% but, if you don't want your baby why should I? If someone wants to have an abortion by all means feel free. I personally don't really care. That doesn't mean I don't think it morally not the right thing to do.

Well I'm not a 'pro-lifer' in particular. I think that should be the preferred state, but understand the circumstances in which people would want to have an abortion (one that should be taken immediately upon the onset of pregnancy and before the fetus is developed IMO).

 

[Azih]

Well Phoenix I think in this case we need to take a look at the methodology that arrived at those statistics in order to refute them, you can't just dismiss them.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I'm sure the court costs of multiple appeals is part of the cost.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

Interesting statistics, but I don't see how they arrive at those numbers. Why is the cost of a death row inmate higher than that of a regular inmate? If I keep more people in jail, I have to house, feed, and care for them. The longer I keep them in jail, the more money I have to spend. In addition, a jail has a finite capacity. The more people I keep in jail, the more jails I have to build. There seem to be many statistics not accounted for in growing the fixed costs of prisons.

The greatest costs of the death penalty are incurred prior to and during trial, not in post-conviction proceedings. The average time from sentencing to death is more than 10 years. It's not like death penalties are carried out as soon as the verdict is given. If that was the case then death penalties would be much cheaper. Regulare innmates are out of jail back in and out again by the time a death sentance is carried out.

Well I'm not a 'pro-lifer' in particular. I think that should be the preferred state, but understand the circumstances in which people would want to have an abortion (one that should be taken immediately upon the onset of pregnancy and before the fetus is developed IMO).

I agree. But, it's life is not so black and white.

 

[Pimpwerx]

On the whole jail issue, what about rehabilitation? We send guys in there to rot and they come out unchanged. They commit the same crime again, and they get sentenced to more time. God forbid we try to help criminals, but what about rehab or some therapy that will try to correct the disfunctions rather than just throwing them on ice and hoping they don't do it again. All it does is harden men and make them more willing to commit the same acts, or worse. I never understood the way prisons were run. It's a half-assed system like so many others. Like someone saw a way of fixing it, but got bored halfway through and just gave up. I know I'd feel better about my tax dollars being spent on jails if I could feel comfortable knowing that at least a percentage of them were getting treatment and being released as better people rather than criminals who just had some time off from their crimes. PEACE.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

I call FALSE on your FALSE.

Fine, I call false on your false on his false. *shrug*
It's not the way I feel about the situation, but I can easily see someone being FOR convicted criminals being punished with death, while unborn children wouldn't deserve it.

I can keep going but, I think you get my point. If you don't want to debate the religious aspect (not you specifically but as in if you want to look at it from another angle) you can argue the cost. The death penalty is not cost effective.

You only linked to things about cost, not effective. The opposite argument would be that one death penalty prevents a number of people from committing crimes and ending up in jail, thus saving cost.

Interesting statistics, but I don't see how they arrive at those numbers. Why is the cost of a death row inmate higher than that of a regular inmate? If I keep more people in jail, I have to house, feed, and care for them. The longer I keep them in jail, the more money I have to spend. In addition, a jail has a finite capacity. The more people I keep in jail, the more jails I have to build. There seem to be many statistics not accounted for in growing the fixed costs of prisons.

I believe they take into account things like how people on death row go through a load more appeals processes and things like that.

 

[AirBrian]

I'm sure the court costs of multiple appeals is part of the cost.

That's exactly it. Also, in most states (with a capital punishment policy), appeals are required.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

On the whole jail issue, what about rehabilitation?

Rehabilitation is a realtively modern idea (I would say in the past 40 years or so it has come into existence). Our society is more concered about punishment (rightly or wrongly) and the idea of giving innmates skills that could "possibly" help them and move them up the ladder is grating to some.

Truly prisons would be a better place (as far as function to society) if they were more concerned about making sure cons who were/are willing have the right skills and attitude so that when they leave prison they can intergrate and function in society. But, it would be a tough sell to say hey we need to raise your taxes so this con can get his degree in criminal justice.

It's not the way I feel about the situation, but I can easily see someone being FOR convicted criminals being punished with death, while unborn children wouldn't deserve it.

I can see it as well. But, I'm from the school of we all die anyways so when does it matter when? But, I feel if you are going to take a "we must respect life" view it should be consistent no matter how far beyond reproach that individual may be.

You only linked to things about cost, not effective. The opposite argument would be that one death penalty prevents a number of people from committing crimes and ending up in jail, thus saving cost.

Putting them in jail for life has the same effect for less money. I could also argue that on national average over 50% of all death penality cases are commuted to life in prison and in some states that is as high as 68%. The reason I say it's not effective is becasue generally cases that are eligible for the death penality are above and beyond the pale and shock the community to it's core due to it's brazeness, brutality, insanity, & pure evil (see X-Box killings). Did the potential of the death penality stop them? No, and in most cases like that these are people who don't think about the death penality.

 

[Phoenix]

Well Phoenix I think in this case we need to take a look at the methodology that arrived at those statistics in order to refute them, you can't just dismiss them.

Actually I want to neither refute nor dismiss them. I just want to understand them. If its true, its true. Can't be blind to the truth, just want to make sure that the statistics are properly comparing both sides adequately. If it ends up being the absolute case that its cheaper to imprison them, then my stance on the death penalty is likely going to change.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

I think that the biggest pro to the death penalty is that it gives the victims' famliy(ies) a sense of closure/justice.

 

[Ecrofirt]

I don't see anything wrong with killing someone who has commited a crime that deserves death as a punishment.

I'm also all for giving babies the chance to live and experience life. No reason to kill a fetus when it's done nothing wrong.

 

[shoplifter]

I think that the biggest pro to the death penalty is that it gives the victims' famliy(ies) a sense of closure/justice.

I think you mean vengeance, though I do see your point.

There is no more (possibly less) justice in killing someone for their crimes than just locking them up and letting them rot. Like previously said, it's not a deterrent and it costs more. Not to mention the possiblities of killing innocent people, which due to dna evidence is being shown that many innocent people were locked away. Better to just get rid of it.

Really though, I'd support the 'desert island' approach. Put all of the convicts on an island in the middle of the ocean hundreds or thousands of miles away from anything. Let them do the Lord of the Flies thing, and see if they make some sort of society or just end up killing each other. If they escape and make it back to civilization, pat on the back, well done, welcome back to society. After that kind of ordeal, they'd likely not fuck up again.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

They already tried that it's called Australia.

 

[shoplifter]

And look how it turned out!

Georgia on the other hand....

 

[Spike Spiegel]

How the f*ck did this derailment occur?

 

[LukeSmith]

I'm sure the court costs of multiple appeals is part of the cost.

By jove, I think he's got it.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

And look how it turned out!

Georgia on the other hand....

Well, Georgia was prison for people with bad credit. The Aussies where where the real incorragibles went.

 

[AfroLuffy]

I consider myself a moderate because i'm constantly turned off by the political correctness of liberals and the religious association/rhetoric espoused by the right.

I'm sorry but politics are terrible.

Bush has the bible belt firmly in hand, because he conforms and appeals to their sensibilities. The same way the otherside will give Kerry the nod based on Bush's percieved bufoonery.

In either case, people largely ignore what the candidates have done or aim to accomplish in the future; instead, they choose their candidate primarly based on superficialities, commonalities, and partylines.

Now, i realize this isn't always the case, but it's doubtless true in a lot of cases.

Screw debates, screw conventions, screw politics, and screw rhetorical nonsense, I'd feel much better if candidates actually addresssed ALL the relevant LONGTERM issues and where clear as to which side of the fence they sit, not to mention their record and future plans--the media, it follows, cover only this! Anything, to curtail the popularity contest....

I have zero faith in humanity in this regard. I'll go farther with a proposal. Erase the entire presidential campaign process. Voters go to the polls, they are presented with a sheet of paper. On that sheet of paper there's no candidate names(simply, presidential candidate #1, #2, #3 and so forth), pictures, or cleverly written agendas aimed at appealing to an audience; just basic, blanket statements for or against an issue with room for further extropolation--just the damn facts for once--from that voters can make an honest decision based on things that really fucking matter. Okay, I acknowledge the inherent problems and unfeasability of such a system, but i'm so sick of our political system..

----------------

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/

This has been helpful. I've heard very few of his proposals from the media, another problem in itself.

----------
Now let me show my bias.

I like bush for his strong stance on terror and dictatorships, inconsistencies aside.

Speaking as an athiest who gives no quarter to any religion, I admit to percieving Islam as a threat. I have friends from lebanon and pakistan who are pleasant, normal, reasonable people, but i'm not worried about them. I recall listening to an interview where an american journalist asked Saudi Arabia's minister of security how he felt about his population's willingness to kill him being that he was american. The security head laughed and said not to worry, only about 10% are extremists. Statistically, that's 2 million willing terrorists right there. That worries me!

Islam is in dire need of a reformation, but it's not very likely.. what with arab regions featuring poor economic conditions, crazy fundamentalist regimes, a long history of exploitation from world powers, and a religion that's continually growing and refusing to change.

This is where Bush and his advisors come in.

They're essentially taking a huge risk, but they believe that by introducing democracy into the region(iraq), people will eventually begin to see its benefits, and perhaps create much needed changes in thought, policy, ideas, etc.

Now, whether it is going to pan out? Who knows, but regardless it's going to take time and it'll cost more than 1,000 lives that's for sure.

I'm not sure if this approach was for the best, but now that we're in the middle of the hornet's nest, the option to leave isn't viable. If we leave, we will misplace the trust of those who are willing to work with us for change. And false promises and misplaced trust are big enough problems already, as far perceptions of america/the west from muslims are concerned.

This is an issue that John Kerry hasn't fully addressed. If I could place my confidence in him on this one issue, then'd i'd be happy to vote for him, and i'd get sound social/economic policies to boot.

Also, legalize illegals and close the freakin' border.....someone, anyone, hello, congressman? *knock knock*...... Agh, fuck all.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

They're essentially taking a huge risk, but they believe that by introducing democracy into the region(iraq), people will eventually begin to see its benefits, and perhaps create much needed changes in thought, policy, ideas, etc.

And what if with this new democratic freedom they elected a fundalmentalist government. That's democratic but, not what the US wants. We don't REALLY want democratic govenments there is too much risk. What we really want is govenments that are sympathetic to our needs. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Yeman, and a whole host of other countries are far from being democratic but, they are friendly to the US at least from a diplomatic standpoint.

 

[Phoenix]

I like bush for his strong stance on terror and dictatorships, inconsistencies aside.


Speaking as an athiest who gives no quarter to any religion, I admit to percieving Islam as a threat. I have friends from lebanon and pakistan who are pleasant, normal, reasonable people, but i'm not worried about them. I recall listening to an interview where an american journalist asked Saudi Arabia's minister of security how he felt about his population's willingness to kill him being that he was american. The security head laughed and said not to worry, only about 10% are extremists. Statistically, that's 2 million willing terrorists right there. That worries me!

So what are you willing to give up to stop domestic "home grown" terrorists? Its easy to point at terrorists outside our borders and take a strong stance against them, but what about the snipers, bombers, 'cults', and militias in our own country?

They should worry you as well. There are extremists right here in good old USA and we need to be able to deal with them as well. Statistically they aren't a less than 1 percent number either. There are idiots and extremists EVERYWHERE!

Next up is how we deal with the funding and training of our OWN brand of terrorists the world over? Our hands aren't exactly clean either. It is very interesting that we would on one hand condemn terrorists and on the other hand support and encourage terrorists. This cannot be the policy going forward if the system is going to work.

I think this experiment in pre-emptive warfare is wreckless, dangerous and about as well thought out as our war on drugs.

 

[AfroLuffy]

We don't REALLY want democratic govenments there is too much risk

Like we didn't want democracy in Germany or Japan post WWII?

But i see your point.

 

[AfroLuffy]

There are extremists right here in good old USA and we need to be able to deal with them as well. Statistically they aren't a less than 1 percent number either. There are idiots and extremists EVERYWHERE!

This is all well and true, but i'm not so worried about that tiny 1%. Now, if that number grows larger, then of course we'd have to do something. Currently, it hasn't become a problem and all we can do is aim to keep it that way. Certainly, we should work on our own problems at home, but solving those that are a threat now is of higher and more immediate concern, aren't they?

I think this experiment in pre-emptive warfare is wreckless, dangerous and about as well thought out as our war on drugs.

I agree with you but pulling out now may not be the best course.

 

[Pimpwerx]

So what are you willing to give up to stop domestic "home grown" terrorists? Its easy to point at terrorists outside our borders and take a strong stance against them, but what about the snipers, bombers, 'cults', and militias in our own country?

They should worry you as well. There are extremists right here in good old USA and we need to be able to deal with them as well. Statistically they aren't a less than 1 percent number either. There are idiots and extremists EVERYWHERE!

Next up is how we deal with the funding and training of our OWN brand of terrorists the world over? Our hands aren't exactly clean either. It is very interesting that we would on one hand condemn terrorists and on the other hand support and encourage terrorists. This cannot be the policy going forward if the system is going to work.

I think this experiment in pre-emptive warfare is wreckless, dangerous and about as well thought out as our war on drugs.

Is this really you Phoenix? :lol I agree 100%. Home-grown terror is still being ignored for this silly, global crusade, and home-grown terror is what caused Oklahoma City. But McVeigh wasn't Muslim, he was a plain-jane, white American who'd have blended in with like half the populace. Not quite as easy to profile white people. PEACE.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

Like we didn't want democracy in Germany or Japan post WWII?

But i see your point.

Germany was a democracy.

Japan became a democracy due to some skillful diplomacy by MacArthur

1) He didn't hang the Emperor or try him for any war crimes (they surely could have). Doing that surely would have started an insurgency like we have today in Iraq

2) He left the Japanese national legislature, the cabinet and the bureaucracy in place.

3) He suspended Japanese laws restricting political, civil and religious liberties.

4) He ordered the release' of political prisoners and abolished the secret police.

5) He announced a general election to be held in April 1946, only seven months following
the surrender.

6) He also called for the Japanese Diet to pass a new election law to provide for free democratic elections, including, for the first time in the history of Japan, the right of women to vote.

7) In addition, under MacArthur's direction, the growth of labor unions was encouraged (imagine that labor unions being good for democracy)

8) Most importantly Emperor Hirohito renounced the belief that he was a divine or godlike being and that the Japanese were not the Master race.

9) And finally the Japanese are still under full military control of the United States thanks to that whole Article 9 of their Constitution.


Basically the US subjugated then waylaied the Japanese's way of thinking and now owns all the guns in Japan.

 

[AfroLuffy]

Yes, we did all those things, what's your point?

Basically the US subjugated then waylaied the Japanese's way of thinking and now owns all the guns in Japan.

Oh, jesus, do you feel sorry for them?

The japanese seem more than accepting of their current situation, btw.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

No I don't feel sorry for them. Expressing facts is not feeling sorry. I'm just saying it wasn't like this

MacArthur - "Here, take this democracy it's really cool!"

JPN People - "Thank you oh great American overlord this is great why didn't we think of this before the war."

I'm just saying that it seem the Japanese have a nice semblance of democracy after 60 years of occupation.

 

[AfroLuffy]

I'm just saying it wasn't like this MacArthur - "Here, take this democracy it's really cool!"

Oh, my apologies then, I hope i didn't leave you feeling that i thought that way.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

Oh no, the US did exactly what they were supposed to do during that war the attcked, subjugated their emenies, and took over their lands, got rich off of their work. That's what you are supposed to do in a war.

 

[Phoenix]

This is all well and true, but i'm not so worried about that tiny 1%. Now, if that number grows larger, then of course we'd have to do something. Currently, it hasn't become a problem and all we can do is aim to keep it that way. Certainly, we should work on our own problems at home, but solving those that are a threat now is of higher and more immediate concern, aren't they?

Well we've arrested some of our own citizens for wanting to blow up part of the NY subway during the RNC, we had snipers in DC having people afraid to leave their homes or shop for gas, we had a pipe bomb go off during the 96 olympics, we had McVay kill a not insignificant umber of people in Oklahoma City, we have anti-abortionists sniping doctors and blowing up abortion clinics, racists STILL lynching people or dragging them from cars in various states, some jackass mailing anthrax around the country, etc. The fact is that you are MORE likely to be killed by domestic terrorists than international terrorists while you're in the United States! You can't overlook that while at the same time going after what is only perceived as the larger threat.

I agree with you but pulling out now may not be the best course.

Not saying that at all. We've got to be in that one for the long haul, that's what we've signed up for now and whomever gets elected needs to appreciate that situation and understand that pulling out is NOT a solution. The damage is done and now we have to deal with it for as long as it takes.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I hear a lot of "both candidates suck" comments, but consider this:

I didn't differentiate much between Gore and Bush in 2000, but I sure as hell do now.

No, I do not like Bush, especially the blatant manipulation of 9/11 into motive for attackign Iraq (whether it was a good idea or not). Especially not the huge deficit spending. I remember the 80's all too well to like that.

Now-- both candiadtes suck-- but will Kerry be better than Bush? I'll bet on it.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

I think the bigger question is are you voting on the person or the polices?

It seems to me in the general populace people who vote for the person overwhelmingly favor for Bush. People that vote for policy favor Kerry.

To me that's like buying a car from a guy with a 5% higher interest rate because he is "good people".

 

[Alcibiades]

I consider myself a moderate because i'm constantly turned off by the political correctness of liberals and the religious association/rhetoric espoused by the right.

I'm sorry but politics are terrible.

Bush has the bible belt firmly in hand, because he conforms and appeals to their sensibilities. The same way the otherside will give Kerry the nod based on Bush's percieved bufoonery.

In either case, people largely ignore what the candidates have done or aim to accomplish in the future; instead, they choose their candidate primarly based on superficialities, commonalities, and partylines.

Now, i realize this isn't always the case, but it's doubtless true in a lot of cases.

Screw debates, screw conventions, screw politics, and screw rhetorical nonsense, I'd feel much better if candidates actually addresssed ALL the relevant LONGTERM issues and where clear as to which side of the fence they sit, not to mention their record and future plans--the media, it follows, cover only this! Anything, to curtail the popularity contest....

I have zero faith in humanity in this regard. I'll go farther with a proposal. Erase the entire presidential campaign process. Voters go to the polls, they are presented with a sheet of paper. On that sheet of paper there's no candidate names(simply, presidential candidate #1, #2, #3 and so forth), pictures, or cleverly written agendas aimed at appealing to an audience; just basic, blanket statements for or against an issue with room for further extropolation--just the damn facts for once--from that voters can make an honest decision based on things that really fucking matter. Okay, I acknowledge the inherent problems and unfeasability of such a system, but i'm so sick of our political system..

----------------

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/

This has been helpful. I've heard very few of his proposals from the media, another problem in itself.

----------
Now let me show my bias.

I like bush for his strong stance on terror and dictatorships, inconsistencies aside.

Speaking as an athiest who gives no quarter to any religion, I admit to percieving Islam as a threat. I have friends from lebanon and pakistan who are pleasant, normal, reasonable people, but i'm not worried about them. I recall listening to an interview where an american journalist asked Saudi Arabia's minister of security how he felt about his population's willingness to kill him being that he was american. The security head laughed and said not to worry, only about 10% are extremists. Statistically, that's 2 million willing terrorists right there. That worries me!

Islam is in dire need of a reformation, but it's not very likely.. what with arab regions featuring poor economic conditions, crazy fundamentalist regimes, a long history of exploitation from world powers, and a religion that's continually growing and refusing to change.

This is where Bush and his advisors come in.

They're essentially taking a huge risk, but they believe that by introducing democracy into the region(iraq), people will eventually begin to see its benefits, and perhaps create much needed changes in thought, policy, ideas, etc.

Now, whether it is going to pan out? Who knows, but regardless it's going to take time and it'll cost more than 1,000 lives that's for sure.

I'm not sure if this approach was for the best, but now that we're in the middle of the hornet's nest, the option to leave isn't viable. If we leave, we will misplace the trust of those who are willing to work with us for change. And false promises and misplaced trust are big enough problems already, as far perceptions of america/the west from muslims are concerned.

This is an issue that John Kerry hasn't fully addressed. If I could place my confidence in him on this one issue, then'd i'd be happy to vote for him, and i'd get sound social/economic policies to boot.

Also, legalize illegals and close the freakin' border.....someone, anyone, hello, congressman? *knock knock*...... Agh, fuck all.

While I didn't like us going into Iraq in the beginning, as time passes, and after listening to Bush and Blair talk on the subject, it all makes more sense to me.

True, it's a GRAND plan, that is going to cost the United States immensely whether things go more positive or negative, but at the same time, it's pretty admirable.

At first, listening to Powell and Bush about human rights and about bringing democracy sounded really lame and standard, as if they were making exuses for not finding WMD's. It put me to sleep hearing them talk. Also, I wondered if they were even aware how the governments would take it in that region, since most of them are repressive monarchies.

But little by little (maybe it was reinforcement), I kinda started buying into the idea. Maybe it was all the criticism from liberals about how wanting to "install democracy" and "change the world" was reckless and stupid and maybe I got tired of the whining. But either way, now I see it as a Bush positive. I mean, that's pretty bold to want to change the Middle-East. That region is stuck in the dark ages, even in places like Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and some of the more "moderate" kingdoms.

While maybe the initial approach was a too forceful in retrospect, I can see nothing but good coming from a change in that part of the world. It's very risky no doubt, but now that we are headed in that direction, that's honestly the direction I want to keep moving in.

I know people can say that they are happy with repressive governments and that we shouldn't impose systems they don't want, but when you really look at it, I'm not sure if we can draw conclusions about what they'd want, especially since it's basically men running the societies there still.

Are you going to say that the Union shouldn't try to change the society that existed in the Confederacy, because it's not the Union's place to. That's silly. I know one is dealing with foreign societies and one is dealing with the US homeland, but basically the principle is the same, in terms of wanting to end certain injustices and spread freedom.

If they were to allow women to not live under the constraints that come from Arab/Islamic traditions of the past, and the women choose to live under them, that would be one thing, but IMO, they aren't even been given a chance. The one thing that would really transform societies in the Middle-East, IMO, is their attitudes toward woman. If they were to bring women into the workforce and ruling (preferably democratic) system as equals with men, you'd see oppression start to end and human rights emerge.

Liberals complain that the US isn't getting to the root of the problem, that the root of the problem is that we keep messing with them and that if we didn't they wouldn't hate us.

I just don't buy it. Without the ability to experience Western ideals like free speech and a free press, normal controls on society (government, religion, customs, etc...) are basically squeezed to the extreme and you get some very repressed, angry minds out there. Pretty soon, the US is a pawn of the Jews, the Jews caused 9/11, and the Jews no doubt were behind the recent attacks in Russia. The West has probably left that region alone for too long.

I don't think any more invasions are in order, but Saddam was an easy target because of his government's defiance of UN resolutions, he'd already invaded a country before, and the grievances against him from a majority of the population there (regardless of how much they hate the US). Looking at that, I think the Bush administration saw an opening that would allow them to get into the region and try to shake up the area ASAP.

It might take 15-20 years to start seeing the fruits of what happened, but you had to start somewhere, and endless calls for peace and human rights just wasn't doing it.

edit: still, by far the most convincing leader on the subject has been Tony Blair, and the idea probably wouldn't have grown on me so much if not for hearing him speak on the matter.

 

[Kseutron]

"edit" !

 

[Celicar]

Why fix something that wasn't broken. I really can't blame the Republicans. There aren't any valid reasons for a sane person voting Bush/Cheney. Voting Republican is the least retarded reason I could think of. The sheep mentality runs wild in the Republican party. If you can't see it you must try pretty hard not to. Hell, they went fucking ape shit over Nixon during Arnold's rediculous RNC speech. Nixon! As long as you're a Republican it's all good!

Because what I said was right, and what you said was wrong. Democrats are like sheep, and unfortunately, quite a few of my friends are registered democrats.

I ask them, "Why are you voting for Kerry?" and they can't give me one good reason. Democrats are sheep. Nuff said.

 

[Dilbert]

Why fix something that wasn't broken. I really can't blame the Republicans. There aren't any valid reasons for a sane person voting Bush/Cheney. Voting Republican is the least retarded reason I could think of. The sheep mentality runs wild in the Republican party. If you can't see it you must try pretty hard not to. Hell, they went fucking ape shit over Nixon during Arnold's rediculous RNC speech. Nixon! As long as you're a Republican it's all good!

Because what I said was right, and what you said was wrong. Democrats are like sheep, and unfortunately, quite a few of my friends are registered democrats.

I ask them, "Why are you voting for Kerry?" and they can't give me one good reason. Democrats are sheep. Nuff said.

Blanket statements about political parties without a shred of substantiation are bad, m'kay?

You're BOTH wrong for bringing sheep into this. Cerebral Palsy, I don't care what's you've heard about how much ass hair Celicar has...that doesn't make him or his Republican buddies sheep. As for you, Celicar, just because your friends are inarticulate doesn't make all Democrats sheep either.

 

[videogamer]

Yes most agree that there is climate change, and that humans have some effect on it, however, very few can agree on how much and how quickly this will affect the climate, assuming of course that CO2 emissions go on as predicted in the models. Here's something to watch out for in scientific thinking, "Most scientists agree" is a sign that you've taken a departure from the scientific method and you're dealing with unproven theories. If it's 100% scientifically true that humans cause global warming, than you don't have to agree, or think, or suspect, because it's proven using the scientific method.

What does it mean to be "100% scientifically true?" Science changes quite often. It deals with the best evidence that we have. Take a look at what happened to Newtonian mechanics or Beadle and Tatum's "one gene-one enzyme". These are still quite respected but there are other things out there that improve upon it.

Science really doesn't work with absolutes. Scientists accept (sometimes not) that things change and that today's hypothesis may be modified or given up for something else. Skepticism plays a heavy part in science. Take a look at Woese's domain tree of life... it's widely accepted but there are scientists like Lake who question it. However, because of how well it fits the bacteria into "extreme" bacteria and the similarities in 16 rRNA, it is generally regarded as the best model we have.

BTW, what is your major? Really, I have seen many many scientists/professors avoid going the "100% scientifically true" route in favor of the "the latest research says....."

 

[KingV]

What does it mean to be "100% scientifically true?" Science changes quite often. It deals with the best evidence that we have. Take a look at what happened to Newtonian mechanics or Beadle and Tatum's "one gene-one enzyme". These are still quite respected but there are other things out there that improve upon it.

Science really doesn't work with absolutes. Scientists accept (sometimes not) that things change and that today's hypothesis may be modified or given up for something else. Skepticism plays a heavy part in science. Take a look at Woese's domain tree of life... it's widely accepted but there are scientists like Lake who question it. However, because of how well it fits the bacteria into "extreme" bacteria and the similarities in 16 rRNA, it is generally regarded as the best model we have.

BTW, what is your major? Really, I have seen many many scientists/professors avoid going the "100% scientifically true" route in favor of the "the latest research says....."

Sorry, "100% scientifically true" was a poor choice of words. I'm a systems Engineer/nuclear supervisor (hard for me to quantify my naval nuclear training directly into civilian terms) by training, so I tend to work in levels of cause/effect, statistical analysis, and probabilities. My beef with the term "most scientists agree", is that it goes past something like "Heavy preponderance of evidence", or "The latest research says", and goes into "A bunch of us think". Clearly, many scientific theories will fall apart of change as understanding changes. Newtonian mechanics, as you've said is a great example of that as it falls apart greatly at the atomic scale, however, it's still experimentally verifiable at the scales that we commonly use it. I can still drop a rock from a certain height, measure the time it takes to fall, and experimentally verify the basic laws of gravity, or devise numerous other experiments to prove to myself that Newtonian physics are a valid approximation of the physical world in the scale we commonly deal with.

I am not an expert, but to the best of my knowledge there is no agreed upon model that near everyone has agreed on in the climatology community, whereas Newtonian physics is highly agreed on as a useful approximation for physical behavior the world over, as relativistic physics are much more precise than is needed for basic understanding. It is taught at quite nearly every institution on earth for introductory physics.

It's been established that the world has gotten about .6 degrees warmer over the last century, by our measurements and that CO2 has increased (roughly doubled, IIRC, but that's off the top of my head). However, people can't seem to agree exactly what relation the two have to each other. Clearly, CO2 is a greenhouse gas so it must have contributed somewhat, but is it significant? Is it the primary driver in the century long warming? The Middle Ages were considerably warmer than it is now, it definitely wasn't because of cars, how can we know for certain that this is not just a natural fluctuation of the earth's climate?
http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/n...lim06.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/04/06/ixhome.html

There are no models available that can accurately predict warming patterns. The predictions are all over the place. Frankly, I doubt that we really have enough data to accurately predict climate patterns past a couple years into the future. We have little detailed data of what happened climatalogically worldwide over the past couple thousand years, and our predictions can only be as detailed as our data set. Even if there were consensus there's no widespread consensus on what types of problems, or kinds of problems this would cause, or if it would even really be much of a problem. I agree that humanity's effect on Global Warming is worth investigating, but there are many more pressing environmental problems, or even, reasons to reduce exhaust emissions, that do not rely on a few cataclysmic predictions made 20 odd years ago that by most accounts are now considered extreme.

Even if it were 100% accepted, proven fact, nobody would dare question it that we would see a 5 degree increase in global temps over the next 50 years due to human causes(above most all predictions), Kyoto would still be a flawed piece of legislation, however, you could clearly make the case that something had to be done. There are a number of problems stemming from Kyoto that aren't even related to the debate over climate change, that make me believe the treaty is a bad idea for Americans. I don't have time to properly go into it now however, I have to work early in the morning.

 

[videogamer]

Sorry, "100% scientifically true" was a poor choice of words. I'm a systems Engineer/nuclear supervisor (hard for me to quantify my naval nuclear training directly into civilian terms) by training, so I tend to work in levels of cause/effect, statistical analysis, and probabilities. My beef with the term "most scientists agree", is that it goes past something like "Heavy preponderance of evidence", or "The latest research says", and goes into "A bunch of us think".

I guess you could say, "A bunch of [experts] think"... these are the people who work in this field, and they tend to agree that the "latest research" says that the climate has been affected by humans. This is what they think about the latest research.

"At an international workshop* here late last month on climate sensitivity, climatic wishy-washiness seemed to be on the wane. "We've gone from hand waving to real understanding," said climate researcher Alan Robock of Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey. Increasingly sophisticated climate models seem to be converging on a most probable sensitivity. By running a model dozens of times under varying conditions, scientists are beginning to pin down statistically the true uncertainty of the models' climate sensitivity. And studies of natural climate changes from the last century to the last ice age are also yielding climate sensitivities.

Although the next international assessment is not due out until 2007, workshop participants are already reaching a growing consensus for a moderately strong climate sensitivity. "Almost all the evidence points to 3ºC" as the most likely amount of warming for a doubling of CO2, said Robock. That kind of sensitivity could make for a dangerous warming by century's end, when CO2 may have doubled. At the same time, most attendees doubted that climate's sensitivity to doubled CO2 could be much less than 1.5ºC. That would rule out the feeble greenhouse warming espoused by some greenhouse contrarians. But at the high and especially dangerous end of climate sensitivity, confidence faltered; an upper limit to possible climate sensitivity remains highly uncertain."

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conte...FIRSTINDEX=20&fdate=10/1/1995&tdate=9/30/2004
(article on models converging)

It's been established that the world has gotten about .6 degrees warmer over the last century, by our measurements and that CO2 has increased (roughly doubled, IIRC, but that's off the top of my head). However, people can't seem to agree exactly what relation the two have to each other. Clearly, CO2 is a greenhouse gas so it must have contributed somewhat, but is it significant? Is it the primary driver in the century long warming? The Middle Ages were considerably warmer than it is now, it definitely wasn't because of cars, how can we know for certain that this is not just a natural fluctuation of the earth's climate?
http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/n...lim06.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/04/06/ixhome.html

There are no models available that can accurately predict warming patterns. The predictions are all over the place. Frankly, I doubt that we really have enough data to accurately predict climate patterns past a couple years into the future. We have little detailed data of what happened climatalogically worldwide over the past couple thousand years, and our predictions can only be as detailed as our data set. Even if there were consensus there's no widespread consensus on what types of problems, or kinds of problems this would cause, or if it would even really be much of a problem. I agree that humanity's effect on Global Warming is worth investigating, but there are many more pressing environmental problems, or even, reasons to reduce exhaust emissions, that do not rely on a few cataclysmic predictions made 20 odd years ago that by most accounts are now considered extreme.

Hello, the predictions get updated. Refer to my earlier posts on things being updated. Also, people use different models. Again, look at my previous post on how disagreement doesn't mean "wrong".

"The last couple of decades have seen dramatic improvements in paleoclimatology with at least two orders of magnitude more information (involving a wider range of proxies from more diverse locations), in comparison to around 1975. Much of the basic raw data is now available via the Internet (58), facilitating the assembly of multi-proxy databases. Together with improved statistical techniques, this expansion in available proxy data has led to more accurate reconstruction of the climate of the past millennium."
good article on the methods used: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conte...4708683725_14856&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=10

"But we do know quite a lot about climate and how it is being changed. The basics are straightforward: As we add greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane to the atmosphere, they form a blanket that intercepts infrared radiation as it leaves Earth. This "greenhouse effect" has been well understood for more than a century. Models that have tracked average global temperature over its fluctuations during the past 10 centuries show that it has followed natural events (such as volcanic eruptions and variations in solar flux) quite well up until the 20th century. Then it entered a rapidly rising phase, associated with an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from its preindustrial level of 280 parts per million (ppm) to the present level of 380 ppm--a value still accelerating as we continue business as usual. That's why the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change now attributes much of the present warming trend to human activity."
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conte...&FIRSTINDEX=0&fdate=10/1/1995&tdate=9/30/2004

Also, refer to the ppt slides

Again, science deals with the best that it has... if you want absolute answers, you can look at some philosophy and religion.

Even if it were 100% accepted, proven fact, nobody would dare question it that we would see a 5 degree increase in global temps over the next 50 years due to human causes(above most all predictions), Kyoto would still be a flawed piece of legislation, however, you could clearly make the case that something had to be done. There are a number of problems stemming from Kyoto that aren't even related to the debate over climate change, that make me believe the treaty is a bad idea for Americans. I don't have time to properly go into it now however, I have to work early in the morning.

"Although major changes are necessary, the long time scales of the climate system allow a gradual transition (24, 25). Estimated costs to halve global emissions range from 1 to 3% of gross domestic product (GDP) (4), similar to the annual GDP growth rate in many countries. Thus, implementation of an effective climate policy over a time period of, say, 50 years would delay economic growth by only about a year over the same period (26). This appears to be an acceptable price for avoiding the risks of climate change. However, because the global political-economic system exhibits considerable inertia, a transition to a sustainable climate can be achieved without major socioeconomic dislocations only if the introduction of appropriate measures addressing the long-term mitigation goals is not delayed." ---Kyoto isn't enough, and yet an even greater, long-term, reduction in global emissions seems to be be quite feasible.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conte...94706083848_14418&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0

Check out slides 46-49
http://eee.uci.edu/04z/05085/ecosystem.ppt
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm (and other pages here too)
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conte...FIRSTINDEX=10&fdate=10/1/1995&tdate=9/30/2004
the last one has some statistics that you may be interested in

 

[Error Macro]

Public hangings were definitely a crime deterrent. I think we should go back to those. That would rock.

 

[Alcibiades]

I definitely think long-term the environment is the most important issue out there.

Don't believe me, go see The Day After Tomorrow.

3 big storms have already hit Florida, are we in for another?

I don't care what science throws out there, when I see a FREAKIN BLACK CLOUD around Mexico City, you aren't going to convince me that man hasn't had an effect on our ozone layer and global warming....

 

[duderon]

I definitely think long-term the environment is the most important issue out there.

Don't believe me, go see The Day After Tomorrow.

3 big storms have already hit Florida, are we in for another?

I don't care what science throws out there, when I see a FREAKIN BLACK CLOUD around Mexico City, you aren't going to convince me that man hasn't had an effect on our ozone layer and global warming....

What do you think of Bush's horrible record, then?

 

[Alcibiades]

What do you think of Bush's horrible record, then?

I think what he says is silly and it's disgusting to hear him dismiss Kyoto simply for economic reasons without following up with some plan or innovate proposal of his own.

Still, the War on Terror trumps all issues. I think the envinronment can do another 4 years, then hopefully McCain, Rudy, Arnold, or Powell somehow find themselves on the ticket and will be more friendly to the environment.

Thing is, a lot could be done by the American People themselves, but they continue to buy SUV's and do little conserving...

Either way, for the next few years, I'm more worried about terrorism, for the next several decades, environment will be more important.

A hybrid of Ralph Nader and George Bush would be very ideal (tough on terror + friendly to environment, pro-civil rights + anti-abortion)...

McCain would be awesome, hopefully he can run 4 years from now, especially since he's made it clear he want to overturn Roe V. Wade.

If Kerry wins, McCain would be an ideal challenger and would probably win pretty easily as he is not so polarizing. If Kerry loses, I think Hillary Clinton would be the front-runner for both the Democratic nomination PLUS the Presidency. People would love to see a woman President, and Hillary has been pro-War enough to satisfy a lot of moderates. She said she wasn't sympathetic to peace movements, so Republicans are going to have a hard time labeling her as weak on foreign policy.

 

[Mandark]

It wasn't unilateral. Really, it was basically France. Even if you say Europe opposed us, it was basically France.

* In Europe, France was joined by Germany, Russia, Belarus, Belgium, and Greece in opposing the war.

* The UK is the only other country in the coalition to have given substantial help. The US has paid 90% of the costs, in terms of money, manpower, and casualties.

* Tellingly, Kuwait was the only Middle Eastern country in the CoW.

Oil-For-Food

* You use this phrase at four different points in your post. Other than Ahmed Chalabi's allegations, what is the substance?

* Do unethical dealings with Saddam Hussein in the past make someone unfit to be involved in his overthrow? If so, what is the statute of limitations?

Things that occured after the Iraq invastion:

* North Korea continued to develop its nuclear capabilities.

* Iran continued to develop its nuclear capabilities.

* Incidents of terrorism increased worldwide according to the US government.

Saddam may have not being a threat to the US, but installing a pseudo-democracy is going to give us leverage, stop Hussein payment to families of Palestinian suicide bombers, and at least serves to show some countries that the US keeps it word.

* Thousands of lives, hundreds of billions of dollars for a country that was not a threat?

* I see no evidence that the Iraq war has improved the Israel/Palestine situation. Saddam's payments were a lame publicity stunt to curry favor with Arabs.

* Leverage? Explain.

* The US government took the position that Iraq would not be invaded if it did not have WMD's. It did not keep that word.

BTW, this idea that there are still terrorist attacks going on (and that they've gone up since 9/11) so it must mean the US/Allies aren't doing a good job is the biggest piece of crap I keep hearing. That's like saying attacks from Japan on our military went up after Pearl Harbor, well no sh*t, we're also going after them.

I think I disagree with this. Al Qaeda is nothing like Germany and Japan in WW2, nor is the hunt for AQ cels the same as conventional warfare.

If this were a battle of large armies moving against each other, than aggression will result in more casualties, yes. Simply moving close enough to fire upon the enemy entails being close enough to be fired upon.

But this war does not have that kind of direct connection between aggression and friendly casualties. Al Qaeda is not trying to get tactical advantage on a battlefield. Its members, and members of organizations like it, live outwardly normal lives while planning a single, violent act. When they commit it, they willingly condemn themselves to death, or flee the scene. They work in very small groups, not divisions and batallions.

With all that said, the two US invasions may have moved terrorists to act earlier than they would have otherwise. The worry is that a good number of the attacks in the last year (and the attacks that will be committed in the future) have been done by people who would not have done them without the invasion of Iraq.

Also, it may be a stereo-type, but I honestly don't know what he'd do in office. He hasn't laid out any exact plans.

Plans laid out by John Kerry:

* Getting NATO forces to help. He specifically mentioned taking over border patrol, Iraqi police training, northern Iraq and the Polish zone.

* Cutting other countries in on reconstruction contracts.

* Hold a conference among Iraq's neighbors in which they pledge not to interfere in internal Iraqi affairs.

* Make Iraqi leaders guarantee minority rights (presumably so calm the Sunnis, though from his remarks, it's also to keep the Kurds from getting uppity and having Turkey march in).

* In the short term, allow generals to call in extra forces.

* In the long term, expand the military by 40,000 troops, including doubling the Special Forces and increasing the numbers of other specialized troops targeted at counter-terrorism.

* Create a new training program for Iraqi police. Not very specific on this, but the acknowledgement of the failure up to now is farther than Bush has gone.

* What are Bush's "exact plans" for going forward?

I mean, I'd seriously consider supporting him if he were to come out and say that Syria and Iran need to stop their terrorist support and than a Kerry administration would move to make sure terrorist-sponsoring countries are held to account.

* Are you in favor of the invasion and occupation of Syria?

* Are you in favor of the invasion and occupation of Iran?

Actually, the more Republican states (in the South) are more generous as they give a higher percentage of their income toward charaties, etc...

* Charitable donations are generally higher in racially homogoneous communities. Almost definitely one of the reasons it's politically viable have more socialist policies at a national level. I'd also expect more charity in places where it is obviously needed.

this is silly, those terrorists didn't just pop out of nowhere.

Iraq may be an excuse to rise to the surface, but the fact that they were already there means it was only a matter of time.[/ quote]If you think that terrorists are born that way, that there is a limited number, that their reasons for hating the US are so irrational it must be a pretext, then it would be correct to find and hunt down the terrorists in any manner possible, and not worrying about offending anyone.

If you believe that US foreign policy decisions in the past have actually created resentment that translates to anti-American violence, even if you do not condone that violence (or the legitimacy of the resentment), then it is very important that the war is fought so the number of terrorists being arrested or killed exceeds the number of angry young men being recruited by terrorist organizations.

Don't believe me, go see The Day After Tomorrow.

I have no words. No words!

PS Phoenix, the additional cost of executions is pretty much common knowledge. It's a result of the legal costs. So executing someone the day after their trial would probably solve the problem, as long as you didn't mind frying a few innocent people along the way.

 

[KingV]

I definitely think long-term the environment is the most important issue out there.

Don't believe me, go see The Day After Tomorrow.

3 big storms have already hit Florida, are we in for another?

I don't care what science throws out there, when I see a FREAKIN BLACK CLOUD around Mexico City, you aren't going to convince me that man hasn't had an effect on our ozone layer and global warming....

you do realize that movie was a work of fiction, right? As in there's no theoretical basis for the events that transpire in the movie? You may as well say that we should plan for Kyoto because if we don't, Nuclear War will occur.

 

[Alcibiades]

I promise I'll respond Mandark (not tonight, probably tomorrow), but I do need to say this about TDAT.

It may have been exaggerated in terms of the speed with which everything took place, but look at the weather around us. More tornadoes every year, 3 major storms hitting Florida. Average temperatures going up...

Is Kyoto a work of fiction? Is global warming a work of fiction? Are the holes in the ozone layer a work of fiction?

Look at a picture of Mexico City and the pollution cloud around it. That's REAL, not fiction. We have scientists from both sides debating science, but for me, just looking at the disgusting image is enough to convince me that humans CAN influence global situations.

 

[Mandark]

Yeah, it's a big chunk of text. What it basically boils down to is that I believe your positions are this:

* Terrorism is the most important issue.

* Willpower and aggression are more important than strategy in fighting terror.

* Bush has more willpower because he and his people say tougher-sounding things about it than Kerry, and prosecuted the Iraq war.

* France is corrupt, and the UN is corrupt and slow. European opposition to the war can be reduced to France. Therefor, European multilateralism is counterproductive.

* Nothing the US does can reduce or increase the recruitment of terrorists. Reasons cited for Islamist, anti-American violence are pretenses. Therefor, Middle Eastern multilateralism is counterproductive.

 

[Alcibiades]

ha, no those aren't my positions, I can respond to those now, the more detailed ones tomroorw...

-Strategy is important in fighting terror, and going into Iraq is definitely part of the strategy now. Changing the default, dark-ages attitudes (like treatment of women and oppressing free speech) that are common in the Middle-East is part of the long-term strategy of fighting terror, and Iraq will contribute to that. Still, it takes will-power to take big steps. I don't see the UN as having an will power, I see Bush and Blair (and maybe now Putin) as having the will-power to take more than baby steps.

-Bush definitely has a more solid stance on the issue. I don't know if he has more Will-power than Kerry, but he's definitely more clear in his intentions, which is to intervene in the Middle-East until it comes out of the rut it's currently in.

-The reason I said it's mainly France is because they held a veto in the security council, of course more than just France opposed the US. That said, just because a country doesn't send soldiers for front-line fighting doesn't mean they aren't part of the coalition.

-Of course what the US does can reduce terrorism, but that's a long-term prospect for the most part. I'm saying, if there are cells now, at best we can hope to disrupt them or hope they never get called on to act. I'm saying the US CANNOT reverse the process of recruitment that had already taken place, or any that is going to come from disgruntled commoners after Islamic fundamentalists bring up the Jews or something to get people riled up.

Solving the Israeli-Palestinian issue is part of that long-term goal, but you've already got a whole generation of Wahabi's. Going straight into Afganistan was helpful, but it would really be policially unstable to attempt to go into Saudi and Pakistan areas with American troops, so I definitely think Middle-Eastern mulitlateralism is important. The recruiting in those places is really out of our direct hands.

We've already got Saudi Arabia to start removing extremists for teaching positions, so we are taking steps.

I don't see how you came to infer those things, when I'm obviously implying that if change were to occur in the Middle-East, the terrorist grounds for recruitment wouldn't be there the way it is now.

You've got an angry, ignorant, repressed society. Then you've got Western societies. Where do you think it would be easier to recruit in? Finding an issue to rile up young oppressed people's in the former isn't really all that hard to do, Sure we gave them an extra one with Iraq, but iit's not like there is a shortage of Jew-related, "infidel"-related things that terrorist recruiters are going to use anyway.

The US CAN do something to halt this opportunity, but i's not just having Israel give into terrorism or have us pull out of Iraq, it's actually making it so that society there isn't angry, ignorant, and repressed.