The End?Or Only The End Of The Beginning?

In responce to the last post, my research took me in an awfully unexpeded direction.

Facts: What Saddam did to his people was seriously dwarfed by what we have done. The disasters caused in the first action caused not only 10s of thousands of deaths, crop failures, and more as a result, but it also was greatly seen through most of Iran and other nearby countries. Beyond this the effects were would wide. Saddam stated he would pull out long before we saw the first oil field go up, and if we would have let him fall back, and take a more political stance that combative, the oil fields would be safe today.
This proves the fatal mistakes made by the first conflict. So instead of writting on the problems with our reasoning of going to war I decided to write on the cost of war. From world war 1 through present day. It would take 100s of Saddams to cause the suffering we did to the Iraqi people the first time through, and at least 1 a whole life to ammount to the ammount caused in this recent conflict. The first shown NO signs of change, so we outwieghed the suffering that Saddam did to his people by several fold and changed nothing. This time I hope something at least changes for the damage we caused. Ask anyone that survived Europe during and after WW1 or WW2, ask them what things were like over there. Look at the damage we caused and ask youself not whether Saddam was a bad man, but did the Ends justify the means? How many innocent will die before Bush realizes his bloodlust cannot be satisfied.

And not to mention, we have terrorists, we trained terrorists, we Gave Bin Laden weapons, Iraq weapons, and much more. We should first ask why we did these things. Not to mention terrorist groups like the KKK, IRS, and NSA working in the us. Oh and don't forget Dentists, now they have perfected the science of terror if you ask me.

Blaming US because Saddam said he would do a certain thing is assuming he was intent upon keeping his promise. The US did not set fire to the oil fields Saddam Hussein did. Furthermore it is clear he did not
have the support of the league of Arab Nations with respect to invading Kuwait his actions in every
way, was the result of his own ego. Just because after the fact Saddam makes a claim, which because of his desire to save face. He attempts to implicate others. does in no way negate the reality of what he did.

There is no reason to ask why we gave Osama bin Laden weapons (remember that movie about Afghanistan with Sylvester Stalone). We gave him weapons to fight the Russians which if you will note
are currently engaged in a conflict with the Chechen (for how many years?).

If I save your life and later without provocation you slap me in the face and spit on me. I will probably later not regret saving your life, but if after that you go further and try to kill me I will.

Simply stated to date I would safely say the US reacted the same way.

I did not state we set the fires, I WAS THERE!!!!!!!!! I don't remember carrying torches.
At the time the way the war seemed right. But Saddam was suggesting he would pull out of Kuwait before we attacked. We would not accept that alone, we wanted more retribution.
In all things, you must take it one step at a time. He offers to pull out, let him, then discuss the rest later. That way Kuwait is safe, the oil is safe, and his leverage is gone.

I will not argue what may happen, because there is no point in guessing. Saddam may decide to pull out burning the oil more effectively on his way out. He may have pulled out, and tried to handle things politically. My point was sometimes war needs to be the second line of thought, even when its already in movement. WW1 would have never stopped with people thinking all or nothing. Germany was not defeated, but would have been eventually, at a much higher cost. The point is, when a peaceful solution presents itself as an option why do war mongers have to say F'U before thinking logically.
It is easy to sit back and be a critic, if you feel so strongly about help Saddam's people do this. To feed his people it will take each American giving up 1 mean a week, no extra food in the next or previous one, no extra water. This is just for them to survive. 1/6th of American students need to give up their books to give their children a chance to learn a better way, or NOTHING will change. Education is the only defeat to war. The children of the Middle East suffer far more than the people that lost their families. They will have pain, and get on with their lives. These chidren will have a hard time at best to do so.

Before you ramble on about I saved you ass. Think again, I was there! They were NOT attacking Americans, we fired on Iraq the first time in BOTH cases. Their terrorists had NOTHING to do with the twin towers, but now they will. Bush condemned my ass to a life of more terrorism, because his mouth is bigger than his brain. Deal with those that attack America first, then deal with others. Deal with it politically before you act like this is the old west. A pistol can kill only one, a nuke can kill a city.
If Bush hates him so bad, why is he hidding over here? He has never saw war at all, and acts like he is so grand and great. Hell he think we are his people, guess what he is my employee, and I for one say fire the son of a bush.
Tax cut to the #ing rich, give me a break.
Year, the rich don't spend what they have, why would the spend that tax cut? Give it to the people that will spend it, the poor, if you want to #ing boost the economy. Education is reality, and I am sick of rednecks that think they know #. Research his school bills, his poverty plans, Texan poor suffered, why should America?

Now that I have composure, I just want to say, all you jughead morons out there that think because I am against war, I am afraid to fight, serve or do my duty, take another look. I just would rather do it using my brain and not my dick, er sorry bush.

First, I am somewhat sorry about my loss of compusure. My excusses are what they are, and not involving anyone.

I do have to say one thing. I dislike people and myself when they act like the other view is f'd. I am not questioning in any way that Saddam is a bad man and needs to die. I am only questions the means by which we are handling it.

Answer this question: After the first conflict, when was Saddam planning to kill the US? He took no known action against us, and if he had plans far in the future that would give us plenty of time to keep him contained.

I also dislike attitudes that anti-war people are weak, cowards, or have never seen the battlefield. I am not weak, not a coward, and I have seen a battle field. If it meant saving people I would be the first to pull the trigger. But logic and reason can save time, lives, and more.

As far as giving them weapons to fight Russia, perhaps we should do a bit more back ground checking. Or if we wanted Russia so bad, perhaps we should have shown our superior might and done the job ourselves, instead of letting a group of "freedom fighters"/terrorists, depending on if they are for or against your cause, a bunch of guns.

The world shunned assassination, I supported it. As with assassination, someone just as bad would replace him with our glorious battle.

I can think of several ways to do as much damage to the US as the twin tower incendent, I can also see many things that should have prevented it not happen that normally do. Any time prior to sept. 11th interceptors are scrambled any time a plan fails to respond or goes off it's flight path. Yet niether plan was shot down. It takes less than 12 minutes to get a plane in the air, lock on and fire, yet how long was it between the different incidents?

All I can say is that if I can come up with three means to cause destruction, so can the terrorists, and so can the CIA. Who cares who they get their weapons from, the last attack they used knives, are we going to stop selling knives?
Just incase you are wondering, I will not release these tactics to anyone I do not personally know will not either use it themselves or give it to a friend that would. I have done my duty by sending these scenarios to the appropriate authorities, and that is where it will stay. I will not risk the lives of others to prove the ability, it does not take much to think of your own, so go for it. You may need to study up on warfare tactics a bit, but really it is mostly just common sense.

Meanwhile we spend billions to protect planes that will not be under siege again, just so a few people can have a sense of security. Battle field tatics strongly urge no matter how good the plan worked the first time, it WILL NOT work then next. Instead we should have compiled a huge list of suspected means of terrorism, and rattled of our means of preventing them, and suggest they are already in place, even if they are not. If nothing else it would slow terrorists down while we focused on other means, and waited to catch them. As an American I would feel far better and safer to hear, so and so, a known terrorist was stopped trying something, than spend an extra hour to get on a plan. Hindsight is 20/20, foresight takes work.

If nothing else this war promotes terrorism, the idea is to get the other country so worked up they do stupid things. Guess what, it worked. Terrorists will now see the US as fragile mentally. We cannot go around attacking countries because we lost a few thousand people. It was devistating yes, but more people die each day in car accidents. We cannot just sit idle either, that is saying come on in, bring terror. We stiffled our economy to stop an action that would not be allowed by the people on that plan ever again. Hell the did us a favor in some ways, who is dumb enough to highjack a plan now, even for hostages?

We could have hunted him down, put a 40 billion dollar price tag on his head and those of his followers, and saved a buck or two without calling 1800collect. Instead we get a wild hair up our ass, find a target to take out aggression on, make America look stupid to the rest of the world, screw up our economy, and wage war against a somewhat random country without going to the UN and arguing our points well enough to get support. Bin Laden is prolly laughing his ass of right now at our ego, and you claim Saddam has one, check yourselves. Ego is part of nature, as is revenge, I do not blame people be being angry, or wanting revenge, but our leaders should be wise enough to listen to reason first.
Rules of engagement include but are not limited to the following:
Make sure where you walk is clear, it will be at your back in another step.
Keep an eye on your buddy, he is your last defense and you are his.

We broke both of these. Our first order should have been to take means that would reduce terrorist possibilities here, find bin laden, he is the one we put at our backs when our attention changed to Saddam. He now can easily rally more American hating troops, if he and his emmidiate followers were dead, it would make it that much harder for him to recruit.

Our buddies said to slow down, perhaps there are good reasons to wait. While I understand the reasons many said no, others are somewhat fuzzy, it is good to know where everyone stands, so you know who to watch as a friend and who to watch as an enemy.

I can see a downside to giving Saddam more time, I will give you that. He could spend resources to build defenses, and prep more for the results. This could be potentially bad, but wieghing the odds, I would still suggest we not make enemies with those that have watch our backs so long. It is also possible, knowing we mean bussiness, that Saddam lets inspectors check all they want. Especially if they know the UN is all that stands between them and America, and not for much longer. Its called polotics, and it can save the lives of many.

Lets see the score board:
Bush may have taken down Saddam, and broke his word that he just wants him out of there with his new blood hunt. That looks good to the rest of the world doesn't it? "I will not hunt him down, I just want him out of there." Hmm, change in story as soon as he hears Saddam may be elsewhere.

Bin laden at large, probably recruiting with new vigor, after Iraq. Bin Laden will most likely do more damage next time, and now that some countries are anti-America that may posses nukes, Bin Laden also has a higher chance of getting one. Say bubye to NYC? I hope not.

The think most Americans do not understand is that the Middle East is NOT intimidated by Terrorism, be it through shock and awe, or blowing up a building. The governments may get excited, because like Bush their leaders are cowards that sit in the back line.

I would also like to point out, anti-war enthusiats SUPPORT OUR TROOPS. Sometimes I feel more so than warmongers. I personally want every last man and woman to come back safely. Over a hundred will not, could their lives have been saved? What price is worth their lives? I personally say if we can save more lives on both sides by waiting a moment longer and pushing a bit harder politically. It is worth that risk.

Bitch me out all you want, but say more than you saved my ass, because you did not save my ass. If that is all you can say then say nothing.

Well enough ranting on, if you really want to discuss this or yell, piss and moan at me, I plan to respect others and no longer post here on this topic, so email me, [email protected] Oh, and mail bomb it if you like, I just wont get any legit emails flaming me. And if I figure out who you are, expect casual retaliation. 31143

Give Peace a Change, you never know, it may just save your life.

Shorien I doubt anyone would flame you it respect to those two post because my impression is, most would not have any idea what you are talking about.

Your thoughts seem disorganized.

As far as my analogy that is all that it was I have no idea what you are talking about in that respect nor do I understand your title.

Where exactly did you serve during Gulf War One and under whose direct command? Can you be specific enough without giving away your identity?

To be clear did read both posts and to be honest you sound very familiar.


No military force in what at present is commonly known as human history, has ever done anything like what the US has done in respect to Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq. To be specific if there is another attempt at terrorist activity against this country what happened, will happen again.

SLIBR
SLIBD

I did not state that the US set those fires what I did state, is that in no way can the US be blamed for
this act it is irrevocably the responsibility of Saddam Hussein. Why in Gods name would the US give him
more time, so he could have more weapons?

You were right when you began posting at this thread, this is not you expertise

In response to my thoughts being disorganized, they probably are somewhat. I was very livid yesterday, and due to the fact I normally just free write a post, it stands to reason my post was somewhat disorganized. It may be unfair to others, in which I am sorry, but it gives me a way to construct my thoughts, consolidate, and get a response to the basic ideas I originally have. So when I take my ideas to a more impacting medium, it says something in a way people can understand, see, and follow.

As for whom I served under, I don�t remember those names, it was a long time ago, I was in the Navy, and I was basically just a sea monkey. My views were much different back them, and I did not even fully understand the numbers we were pouring out. I failed to see each of the thousands that died by the conflict as real people, mainly because it was a mentality that allowed us to do what we must.

Quote: �No military force in what at present is commonly known as human history, has ever done anything like what the US has done in respect to Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq. To be specific if there is another attempt at terrorist activity against this country what happened, will happen again. �

And thus far how many terrorists have we captured? How many people will die, how much damage will we do before we realize we cannot just waltz in there, attack the country that holds these terrorists, and fling threats around. We will add fuel to the terrorists, escalate things, and get those not targeting the US to rethink that logic. Why not start with our own terrorists, the KKK and Gangs. What of the IRS or Dentists?

I do not blame the US for setting fire to those oil fields, I simply believe our leaders should have first accepted a mutual acceptance of an Iraqi withdraw and after they have lost their leverage renegotiate. It may not have worked, but the chance would have been worth it. Although this is my current stance, I would not have done anything different back then, it could be I was more bent on kicking their ass, or just not looking at the big picture, or I saw something I do not now. In any regards, it was arbitrary and probably should have stayed in another debate.


While I am no expert in the psychology of Saddam, I do know that people in his region keep their word when it comes to threats. For this if we threat and do not follow through then this can be a sign of weakness. This ads validity to our acts the first time, but also states firmly that we need to think things through before we spout of threats.

The three things I base this on are:
1. What will change?
2. 2. Is that change worth the lives of our troops.
3. 3. Are our views and actions just?

The first point, I feel considering the region, it will take decades to notice change. Their children are raised under iron fists and war. Like a son that follows their father, be it noble or a drunken abusive, it is a fact. Change will happen, but the region will not be stable for at least a few decades, what would a few months of extra debate be to that?

The second, if there is another way, the answer is no. While it may be the final and only answer, many options were presented which the US ignored for war. Any time this happens it is wrong. The first conflict had no one stating any other options, we held of as long as reasonable. While it is a safe argument to state what happened the first time may happen again, it would be unlikely.

The third point, I agree it seems bad; morality is hard to weight using reason though. We have different views on the situation, which of us is right? We can take consensus to get the answer, but tell that to those that condemned Galileo. The entire world was against him, yet he was right. By this argument the US may be right, but Galileo was not talking about peoples lives, he was talking about our solar system, which would not change regardless what we thought. Bush jumps to fast and to far in my opinion, and needs to slow down before he threatens several countries, kills thousands of people, and sits back gulping coke and sniffing tea.

As a side point to Saddam�s people. We often state: "We did not expect his people to react the way they did." This tells me who ever expected them to be so docile failed to do simple research. While many of the people are suppressed, even those are in better shape than 20-30 years ago. While Saddam is not a shining example of humanity, he is better that what used to be there. I am not stating this as an excuse to let him stay in power, only an explanation why more people supported him than expected. The problem is that these people never saw anything better. This is one of many reasons I feel many of our leaders are dim witted when it comes to war. War is psychological, more than anything else. If we do not look at the psychology of our enemy we will never know what to expect. And only through extensive outgunning can we hope to win. The next war may be fatal if we ignore this.

Thank you Shorien for you last response, it is clear, concise and presents you as an educated person interested in debating issues which are relevant to the topic.

Let�s begin...

Its apparent you are seriously concerned with respect to Syria and perhaps Iran. And to be certain it pertains to the issues of the Hezbolah (army of God) as well as the long-standing reputation of Syria. As not only a weapons dealer but as a country which profits from the profession of starting wars (third in line is respect to the oldest professions after prostitution and stealing).

As stated in this thread and with respect to others, at present the idea of the USA engaging those countries militarily is premature. I want you to understand Shorien that the recent words of Collin Powel should be taken seriously.

This country is very powerfull Shorien, to conclude that what is presents openly, as the state of the art of its arsenal is a serious mistake. Saddam Hussein made the attempt to control territory which was a part of its interest. Despite his statement that he would not have burned the oil fields had the US allowed him room to move his troops as valid. This country was obligated to defend the country of Kuwait from the presumption that militarily Saddam Hussein could attack Kuwait again.

From my standpoint I know of no offer with respect to what you are discussing. And for the record that is strange, as I am aware of Saddam Hussein statement that he would not use the WMD in his possession ever again (though to be honest I do not and did not believe it ).

For the sake of argument I want to let you know about the potential of the US arsenal. This in respect to what is beyond what is understood as its arsenal, with respect to what I am about to explain I want to be clear. Should anyone ever even conceive of an attack? against the US or its interests take into consideration that I was made aware of this what I was 19.

You are of course familiar with what is often referred to as a Hydrogen Bomb. What many do not realize is that the same thing can be done with respect to the application of the element Cobalt. Instead of a two
mile crater what is the resultant effect is a crater 10 miles in circumference, the resultant effect of one bomb.


Shorien the United States of America is a country, and in respect to the ultimate responsibility of its leadership, are approximately 250 million people it must protect. Why in fact it has gained the technological ability to take out a regime like Saddam Hussein in less that 30 days, is a question to be responded to by historians (Far into the future). To be certain though it is the result of the cooperative
a democracy allows.

Reacting the way they did in regards to history was irrelevant they still lost in less than 30 days. And for the record that is less time than it took to take out the leadership of Afghanistan. To be certain as a country (the Taliban) they were far less organized and less capable of mounting an attack.



What are your thoughts?

I will try to keep this organized, but I am on a time crunch.

While I agree strongly we have a great arsenal, including nuclear weapons capable of unleashing huge amounts of destruction, this is not our greatest strength in this type of war. Our greatest strength is the accuracy at which we can wield precision of conventional weapons. As with ground combat, Air combat is based on two things, the ability to hit first and hit accurately. We have a much further range than most countries in the air, and can see, detect and fire before any country can see us coming. We have a system nick named Friend or Foe that allows for someone to fire an attack without directly seeing the target or knowing where it is. We have suits that mask our body heat and makes infrared almost useless in detecting our ground troops. This list can go on for ages.

I do not believe our odds of loosing a frontline war with Syria, Iran, and any other Middle Eastern countries all at the same time would fail. Some have crude nuclear capabilities, and if we can stop them before they detonate we are at no loss, but as it stands if we fail in that, those not appropriately sheltered will die. Nukes have one advantage over conventional weapons in that they do more damage when they detonate before they hit the ground. But in contrast, I also see it as unlikely they will use nukes even if they have them, as we have shown constraint for similar reasons they would. We can level their entire country in a matter of hours.

The problem is we fight a war of honor in comparison. Historically, we were considered uncouth with the means that we fought the British, instead of lining up and facing off, we hid in the trees. Things have changed since a few of centuries ago when people lined up for battles. But the US is somewhat untrained to deal with Terrorism, the amount of terrorism we have experienced in mild and remote. Our troops in the Middle East are only partially trained in urban combat, which their troops are on average more trained to deal with. We still hold the advantage of technology superiority though.

My big concern, are we ready to fight on American land? While Pearl Harbor, The Civil War, and perhaps the Alamo and skirmishes with the natives spread across our lands, we have not seen any truly wide spread conflict here. Terrorism is a new battleground to America, we have had little experience in it, and our troops are not fully trained to deal with it. My concern becomes real at this point, not whether we can defeat a foe easily seen, but whether we can defeat the foe in our midst, and what of our morals will be lost in that fight. Several of our policies and constitutional rights make terrorism easier; will we give up who we are to feel safe? Is it worth such a price?

Weapons of mass destruction are not the biggest concern, but they are definitely a concern. I just state plainly, while most Americans would hesitate, respecting the basis of human life, they may not. We are talking about a culture that has little concern for human life, and would throw it away to reach glory in the eyes of their god. While we are more willing to hold back on mass destruction, they may decide they are loosing, and resort to the use of such weapons. For this reason, I feel strongly about removing such weapons from all countries, eventually even ours, conventional weapons are devastating, but WMD are far worse. Their weapons would be short range, and the blast would be relatively small, but the residual radiation would last much longer.

The bottom line is we are dealing with fanatical people, and when dealing with devoted people you must remain collected, threats can often make matters worse, but hopefully in this case they actually helped. In any case, I feel the US needs to show that we are powerful, but also wise, so far a big part of the world does not see much wisdom. It is not a matter of whether we see ourselves justified, or if we are justified, it only matters that the rest of the world sees us as justified. While we can take on a third world country, we are not that far advanced from other first world countries, and perhaps not more advanced at all.

There are countries out there that can challenge the US and have a chance of winning, we are more advanced, but we are also gravely outnumbered. I worked under top-secret clearance when in the military, but there is no secret to the power of Chinese in numbers, the fact they were one of the first four countries to develop nukes, and have strong military forces that could contest with ours. We most likely would win a conflict be it conventional or nuclear with China, but the cost would be devastating. Fortunately we are not fighting with China, and it is almost a moot point.

I strongly believe the way this battle and the first Gulf conflict was far better than Korea or Vietnam. We have advanced our tactics, but now we stand in unfamiliar grounds. We cast quick slurs, blatant threats and insults, and to what ends. I for one would not expect the French to be ready to send troops to fight Saddam, they have several Iraqi refugees in their country, and outside of their financial aide they gave to Saddam, this presents a risk at home. The French did what many would consider a good deed in trying to help the Iraqi people, but in doing so, they set themselves up to be a DMZ. How many of those refugees are terrorists? France is not wrong by accepting refugees in my opinion, and is wise to watch their homeland first. Regardless of what side of the war we stand on, attacking the French resolves nothing.

It may sounds like I am going to other areas, and jumping off the issues in instances with bringing up France, or China, please just bear with me on it, and accept they are relevant from my view based on the following. France was our ally; they would have most likely still supported us in other areas before the personal attacks, but now are likely to have bad feelings towards us. My largest concern is the countries we are spitting on in the process of taking out one tyrant. No matter how just we stand, this is not wise.

In summary, the points I make are: We are not prepared for the terrorist activities that will likely increase. France was our ally for a long time; to spit on them for any means is not wise. And while we are powerful we are not invincible.

The topic of the thread is the End as so potentials with respect to other countries does fall within its auspices.

In respect to the issue of Urban war would again site the rather unusual success to date, its is perhaps possible the statement made with respect to the strength as the resolve of Iraqi forces was an effort to
feign weakness. Yes the US has had limited experience with fighting Urban wars, but can think of one ally whose techniques and experience in this area is substantive. I would surmise that Israeli training manuals with respect to this issue were required reading to forces which entered the cities of Iraq.

Yes we are dealing with countries to whom fundamentalism is perceived as something to aspire
to. And as a reuslt the response of the US to them needs to be clear with respect to its resolve to protect its interest. I would say that to date the US is in an effort to resolve the matter of accountability with respect to terrorist acts.


China is a very interesting country and with respect to the history of its relations with the US it has varied greatly in the 200+ years of its existence. Would go so far as to say that today relations between China and the United States have an element to it which is very personal and is based upon ancient traditions.

Shorien I was wondering when we were going to get to the French, yes it is apparent a lot of hostility exist but clearly the idea of military action is seen as absurd by all involved. I read an article, which came up as a matter with respect to the Israelis at about the same time the French began to move away from supporting the US.

The Israelis aired a documentary and made certain that is was seen in every Moslem country, in which a former Prime Minister of that country. Stated very clearly that it was France who gave Nuclear technology to the country of Israel. Under such circumstances that France bowed out of fighting this war may have given the US an advantage with regards to the issue of averting escalation. And while I am sure there are some that would scoff at this idea given the time line, in my opinion it is a valid conjecture.

Its important to remember that despite some disagreed with the matter of when to go to war; no country in the world actually interfered with US/UK military forces. We are discussing war and a vote of no confidence, rather than one of active military support for the other side has little meaning with respect to the reality of war.

Nonetheless as the adage goes it takes at least two people to start and argument and the larger the populations. The more likely is the argument based upon conditions in which to some extent, both sides
have misconceptions about the others intentions.

I know that if today I stood in front of the Eiffel tower and waved and American flag while singing "My country �tis of the", it is highly probable that I will be arrested for inciting a riot. Conversely going to Madison Square Garden with French Flag while singing a relatable song would have the same effect (in both cases I would be lucky)

To be realistic the real problem of terrorism is that it applies the common citizen as a target, it is clear that in recent history the effort has been made to legitimize and or make legal such an effort. The impetus of this movement has been a cause for our country to react the way it has. It is the reason why so much effort was made to assess the status of captured Taliban and Alqeada fighters as illegal combatants and not prisoners of war. A soldier in this age having had what can be termed the state of the art in training is a weapon. To be clear if such a person is purposefully applied to attacking the common man, such an act should be seen as a crime.

This raises the stakes in respect to those who would be supportive of such behaviors and it makes clear that if one is so angry, at the policies of a country it is in there best interest to rally support for formal hostilities
rather than terrorist acts. It also raises the issue of how a terrorist against another country will affect the
country that a terrorist hails from, it changes the issues of accountability and makes a potential financial
supporter of terrorist acts considers the potential ramifications to his or her way of life.

The United States is not invincible but because of the fact that today it is acknowledged as a superpower
Bespeaks of the problems that can and does occur, as a result of leaders in other countries torturing and killing its population to protect there own base of power. Clearly such behavior cannot be tolerated as to be honest is such behavior is occurring and nothing is being done about it, who does the common man ultimately blame as root cause to such actions? In discussing what motivates a person to act against innocent People perhaps the way innocents are treated in his or her day to day life are an important motivation.

What are your thoughts?