Does democracy really quell terrorism?

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: mOeeOm
The thing is, America's invasion of Iraq gave the terrorists a common enemy...thats why they are increasing more and more, attempting to set up democracy will just piss em off more and they will increase and concentrate more.

It's a nice little circular theory the terrorists and terrorist supporters like yourself have set up. Changing the social systems in the Middle East will create more terrorists... guess we're stuck with 'em. Evidently the only solution is to buckle to their rage and demands. Yay, terrorism wins :roll:

That's not what he said and you know it.

In little bites.

America is attacked by Bin Laden.
America goes to war with the Iraqis
America kills Iraqis (which you and yours continually disregard as being unimportant)
In return we set up a government for them.

Terrorists have a field day with this. There IS terrorist activity in Iraq where there was none, because Bush and Co. fertilized the ground with Iraqi blood. You may have noticed that some "terrorist supporters" in the government are worried about this. Some "terrorist supporters" might have gone after the terrorists instead of a red herring.

If someone is a terrorist supporter because they think your beloved war is wrong, then lets call the supporters Nazis and be done because both make the same sense. None.

 

[Deudalus]

Its pretty simple really.

In Kuwait the people have some money, good schools, some rights, and hope for a future. I don't see many news sources talking about "Kuwaiti insurgents detonated a car bomb in Iraq."

You don't see that because Kuwaitis have a choice between living a pretty decent life in Kuwait or being a terrorist. Not surprisingly they choose the former rather than the latter.

Saudi Arabia produces terrorists. The people have no rights there and little money despite the fact that the House of Saud is filthy rich.
Iran same situation.
Syria same situation.

I think even the most blinded liberal could see the trend here.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Deudalus
Its pretty simple really.

In Kuwait the people have some money, good schools, some rights, and hope for a future. I don't see many news sources talking about "Kuwaiti insurgents detonated a car bomb in Iraq."

You don't see that because Kuwaitis have a choice between living a pretty decent life in Kuwait or being a terrorist. Not surprisingly they choose the former rather than the latter.

Saudi Arabia produces terrorists. The people have no rights there and little money despite the fact that the House of Saud is filthy rich.
Iran same situation.
Syria same situation.

I think even the most blinded liberal could see the trend here.

The liberals realize that. It's the chickenhawk neocons controlling our country's foreign policy that need to wake up.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Deudalus
Its pretty simple really.

In Kuwait the people have some money, good schools, some rights, and hope for a future. I don't see many news sources talking about "Kuwaiti insurgents detonated a car bomb in Iraq."

You don't see that because Kuwaitis have a choice between living a pretty decent life in Kuwait or being a terrorist. Not surprisingly they choose the former rather than the latter.

Saudi Arabia produces terrorists. The people have no rights there and little money despite the fact that the House of Saud is filthy rich.
Iran same situation.
Syria same situation.

I think even the most blinded liberal could see the trend here.

you forgot Pakistan and Egypt. Then again your theory does not take into account the more affluent terrorists who were raised/schooled in the West.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: conjur
The liberals realize that. It's the chickenhawk neocons controlling our countries foreign policy that need to wake up.

Both sides have controlled the policy.

When they watch over their shoulder for the next sets of polls, they can not formulate a proper policy and impliment it.

Chickhawks existed under the Dems as well as the Repubs. Both types of administrations have bent to appease other interests (economic and political); therefore creating an unstable policy front and implimentation.

Opponents that do not have such political concerns (inside and out) therefore see this as a weakness and attempt to exploit it.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Apart from the Middle East, if Democracy quelled terrorism, why do we have the IRA in N Ireland and the ETA in Spain? Both are long standing democracies and so called wealthy nations.

Democracy does remove a target for the anger of suppressed people in controlled political systems, but to say it is going to bring peace in the ME is asinine.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Deudalus
Its pretty simple really.

In Kuwait the people have some money, good schools, some rights, and hope for a future. I don't see many news sources talking about "Kuwaiti insurgents detonated a car bomb in Iraq."

You don't see that because Kuwaitis have a choice between living a pretty decent life in Kuwait or being a terrorist. Not surprisingly they choose the former rather than the latter.

Saudi Arabia produces terrorists. The people have no rights there and little money despite the fact that the House of Saud is filthy rich.
Iran same situation.
Syria same situation.

I think even the most blinded liberal could see the trend here.

The liberals realize that. It's the chickenhawk neocons controlling our countries foreign policy that need to wake up.

:roll:

Which liberals realize that? Are they the ones claiming the US and western intervention are responsible for terrorism?

btw, Kuwait is a constitutional monarchy, not a democracy. The difference is that Kuwait's government is not known to be as oppressive as that of SA, Syria, Iran, or like the former Taliban in Afghanistan.

Democracy does not elminate terrorism, but it does quell it for a couple of reasons. First, democracy gives everyone a voice in government and democractic governments tend to be less oppressive. Second, democractic countries tend to have a better distribution of wealth, better education systems, and less poverty. That's not to say that some non-democractic countries don't have those things on an equal or even better level, but those countries don't tend to produce masses of terrorists either.

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken


Which liberals realize that? Are they the ones claiming the US and western intervention are responsible for terrorism?

btw, Kuwait is a constitutional monarchy, not a democracy. The difference is that Kuwait's government is not known to be as oppressive as that of SA, Syria, Iran, or like the former Taliban in Afghanistan.

Democracy does not elminate terrorism, but it does quell it for a couple of reasons. First, democracy gives everyone a voice in government and democractic governments tend to be less oppressive. Second, democractic countries tend to have a better distribution of wealth, better education systems, and less poverty. That's not to say that some non-democractic countries don't have those things on an equal or even better level, but those countries don't tend to produce masses of terrorists either.

Great point. Education and standard of living are great controls when it comes to terrorism. But just to be a bit of a bastard, USA doesn't have the hightest rate of either of those.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: azazyel

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken


Which liberals realize that? Are they the ones claiming the US and western intervention are responsible for terrorism?

btw, Kuwait is a constitutional monarchy, not a democracy. The difference is that Kuwait's government is not known to be as oppressive as that of SA, Syria, Iran, or like the former Taliban in Afghanistan.

Democracy does not elminate terrorism, but it does quell it for a couple of reasons. First, democracy gives everyone a voice in government and democractic governments tend to be less oppressive. Second, democractic countries tend to have a better distribution of wealth, better education systems, and less poverty. That's not to say that some non-democractic countries don't have those things on an equal or even better level, but those countries don't tend to produce masses of terrorists either.

Great point. Education and standard of living are great controls when it comes to terrorism. But just to be a bit of a bastard, USA doesn't have the hightest rate of either of those.

I don't think having the highest rate of either is necessary, nor did I imply the US was the pinnacle of either. Merely a decent distribution of wealth, a good education system, and a non-oppressive government (and culture) can do wonders for quelling terrorism. imo, a capitalistic society helps as well because it provides the dangling carrot of potentially elevating your station in life.

And, OT, wtf was up with my fingers typing "democractic?" Is that like voting on who gets the first hit from the pipe?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: azazyel

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken


Which liberals realize that? Are they the ones claiming the US and western intervention are responsible for terrorism?

btw, Kuwait is a constitutional monarchy, not a democracy. The difference is that Kuwait's government is not known to be as oppressive as that of SA, Syria, Iran, or like the former Taliban in Afghanistan.

Democracy does not elminate terrorism, but it does quell it for a couple of reasons. First, democracy gives everyone a voice in government and democractic governments tend to be less oppressive. Second, democractic countries tend to have a better distribution of wealth, better education systems, and less poverty. That's not to say that some non-democractic countries don't have those things on an equal or even better level, but those countries don't tend to produce masses of terrorists either.

Great point. Education and standard of living are great controls when it comes to terrorism. But just to be a bit of a bastard, USA doesn't have the hightest rate of either of those.

And the US has had its share of homegrown terrorists. Just not as wide spread throughout the media.

 

[piasabird]

Most terrorist acts are committed agains countries that further the idea of separation of church and state and against the democratic ideals of modern society. Some people dont want freedom they want their religious rulers to enforce their brand of religious oppression.

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Deudalus
Its pretty simple really.

In Kuwait the people have some money, good schools, some rights, and hope for a future. I don't see many news sources talking about "Kuwaiti insurgents detonated a car bomb in Iraq."

You don't see that because Kuwaitis have a choice between living a pretty decent life in Kuwait or being a terrorist. Not surprisingly they choose the former rather than the latter.

Saudi Arabia produces terrorists. The people have no rights there and little money despite the fact that the House of Saud is filthy rich.
Iran same situation.
Syria same situation.

I think even the most blinded liberal could see the trend here.

The liberals realize that. It's the chickenhawk neocons controlling our countries foreign policy that need to wake up.

How so?

Remember it was the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 that had Pelosi, Kennedy, and all the other hardcore libs wanting to filter CIA money into Iraq to try to spark a civil war and overthrow Saddam.

Clinton put the policy of regime change on the table for Iraq, not Bush. The only difference is Bush did it in a humanitarian way which is to take over and occupy the country which leads to far less deaths than a bloody civil war.


I see you libs constantly up in arms about the Iraqi occupation by the coalition yet not a single one of you want to deal with the facts of the problem. The Taliban and Al Qaida came to power because we didn't step in and help Afghanistan rebuild, we just helped kick out the Russians with our money. There is a great chance that the same thing would happen in Iraq if Clinton would have fostered a civil war without going in to clean up the mess.

The other catch phrase is "war for political gain". Do you not think its a bit ironic that the Iraq Liberation Act was in the works with all the liberals playing war hawk in the middle of Clinton's impeachment trial?


The same liberals who despise Bush for going into Iraq are the same ones who cheered Clinton when he suggested it.

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Deudalus
Its pretty simple really.

In Kuwait the people have some money, good schools, some rights, and hope for a future. I don't see many news sources talking about "Kuwaiti insurgents detonated a car bomb in Iraq."

You don't see that because Kuwaitis have a choice between living a pretty decent life in Kuwait or being a terrorist. Not surprisingly they choose the former rather than the latter.

Saudi Arabia produces terrorists. The people have no rights there and little money despite the fact that the House of Saud is filthy rich.
Iran same situation.
Syria same situation.

I think even the most blinded liberal could see the trend here.

you forgot Pakistan and Egypt. Then again your theory does not take into account the more affluent terrorists who were raised/schooled in the West.

I don't know of hardly any terrorists that were actually raised in a westernized democracy.

I know of many who were born in a horrible country and then spent several years in a westernized democracy however.

Pakistan and Egypt are by no means healthy democracies. Parts of each are. Parts of each are wealthy and look like a western country. Other parts are poverty stricken, (such as northern pakistan) where the fundamentalists are gaining in power.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Deudalus
The same liberals who despise Bush for going into Iraq are the same ones who cheered Clinton when he suggested it.

That's because blustery words of idealism are far more important to many liberals than taking action and actually backing up those words.

 

[Jave]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Deudalus
Its pretty simple really.

In Kuwait the people have some money, good schools, some rights, and hope for a future. I don't see many news sources talking about "Kuwaiti insurgents detonated a car bomb in Iraq."

You don't see that because Kuwaitis have a choice between living a pretty decent life in Kuwait or being a terrorist. Not surprisingly they choose the former rather than the latter.

Saudi Arabia produces terrorists. The people have no rights there and little money despite the fact that the House of Saud is filthy rich.
Iran same situation.
Syria same situation.

I think even the most blinded liberal could see the trend here.

you forgot Pakistan and Egypt. Then again your theory does not take into account the more affluent terrorists who were raised/schooled in the West.

I don't know of hardly any terrorists that were actually raised in a westernized democracy.

I know of many who were born in a horrible country and then spent several years in a westernized democracy however.

Pakistan and Egypt are by no means healthy democracies. Parts of each are. Parts of each are wealthy and look like a western country. Other parts are poverty stricken, (such as northern pakistan) where the fundamentalists are gaining in power.

Timothy McVeigh (Oklahoma City bomber)was born and raised in US, and even served in armed forces. ETA and IRA has been in westernized democratic societies for many years now.
IMHO true democracy, financial situation, education, and others respect for your society are all the key factors to get rid of this evil.

 

[ahurtt]

In a democratic and free society where people are supposedly happy, they are less likely to blow themselves up. Sure America has the occasional nutjob but compare numbers in America vs. places in the middle east. Will you be able to erradicate people with the desire to blow themselves up along with others. . .well hopefully most of them. But not all of them. There will always be a fringe element but you can lessen their numbers in the long run by improving living conditions for people. Just like there will always be car accidents as long as there are cars but by making modern cars safer and ensuring that you let everybody know they should wear a seat-belt, you greatly reduce the likelihood of accidents and associated fatalities. There is no way you are going to please everybody all the time. Sometimes people are just nuts. Right now, we are kind of flushing them out and sending them scurrying, trying to force them into the light and exterminating them. If you plant the seeds of happiness, freedom, and democracy, you are less likely to have more bad seeds sown that will sprout up in the future. At least I think that is the thinking behind it. So like when the exterminator comes to your house, you might see a lot of bugs right afterward as they are flushed out of their shelters, but then there is a marked decline as the days go on. The one nice thing about suicide bombers is that they don't live to fight another day.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Deudalus
Its pretty simple really.

In Kuwait the people have some money, good schools, some rights, and hope for a future. I don't see many news sources talking about "Kuwaiti insurgents detonated a car bomb in Iraq."

You don't see that because Kuwaitis have a choice between living a pretty decent life in Kuwait or being a terrorist. Not surprisingly they choose the former rather than the latter.

Saudi Arabia produces terrorists. The people have no rights there and little money despite the fact that the House of Saud is filthy rich.
Iran same situation.
Syria same situation.

I think even the most blinded liberal could see the trend here.

The liberals realize that. It's the chickenhawk neocons controlling our countries foreign policy that need to wake up.

How so?

Remember it was the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 that had Pelosi, Kennedy, and all the other hardcore libs wanting to filter CIA money into Iraq to try to spark a civil war and overthrow Saddam.

"civil" war? Not quite. Rebellion, perhaps, but not a civil war.

BTW, what was Pelosi's vote on that, HR 4655? Oh yeah...she didn't vote.

Also, supporting a democracy forming from within is WAAAYYY different from invading, occupying, and installing puppets.

Clinton put the policy of regime change on the table for Iraq, not Bush. The only difference is Bush did it in a humanitarian way which is to take over and occupy the country which leads to far less deaths than a bloody civil war.

25,000 civilians dead is "humanitarian"?? Jesus Christ you Bush-God fanbois are SICK!

I see you libs constantly up in arms about the Iraqi occupation by the coalition yet not a single one of you want to deal with the facts of the problem. The Taliban and Al Qaida came to power because we didn't step in and help Afghanistan rebuild, we just helped kick out the Russians with our money. There is a great chance that the same thing would happen in Iraq if Clinton would have fostered a civil war without going in to clean up the mess.

Talk about going WAAAYYY out on a limb. Getting dizzy up there?

BTW, "you libs"? Can you dispense with the baseless hyperbole? I'm not a "lib", whatever that is.

The other catch phrase is "war for political gain". Do you not think its a bit ironic that the Iraq Liberation Act was in the works with all the liberals playing war hawk in the middle of Clinton's impeachment trial?

What war was being proposed during Clinton's 2nd term? Hmm? Care to point out some links? BTW, I was no fan of Clinton at the end and I don't care that he gave in to the PNAC interests. Clinton is more of a DLC Democrat (along with his wife). They aren't true Democrats. More like GOP-lite.

The same liberals who despise Bush for going into Iraq are the same ones who cheered Clinton when he suggested it.

Complete and utter bullsh*t as Clinton never suggested invading and occupying Iraq.

 

[Tsunami982]

in theory yes... people that feel like they have some control over what happens in the government are more content. terrorism is born from desperation and feeling like you have no other way to get your message across. by allowing people to vote and somewhat control their government, terrorism should decrease. only the future will prove this right or wrong.