'War on Terror'

[Pyraxis]

I don't suppose you got kicked in the balls? 

[odeon]

You see why I want to leave Sweden? Many people here actually think that terrorists are "talkable" and reasonable.

[odeon]

Read my post.  I said that we need to replace the dictatorships with democracies before technological advances make it too easy to produce WMD.   

Did YOU have a point?  Or did you just need to bump in with the tired cliche' of "The Iraq war is a mess" when it has nothing to do with the point of my post?

BTW, I did not use "our leaders" in the context of the world, but in the context of the US, which I would assume was quite obvious, as no one uses "our leaders" in the context you are suggesting.   

In the same vein, I'd like to propose the following solution to today's problems:

Everybody should stop fighting since it's counter-productive. The easiest way to make them all realize that this is the case is, of course, by telling them. We must do this before it all goes too far. Now, therefore, is a good time.

My method kills fewer people than yours.

Telling them?!?!?  This is the most ridiculous solution that I have ever heard.   

Bush:  Bin Laden, please stop, your war against the west as it is only causing death and destruction.  This is counter-productive to attaining peace between the west and middle east. 

Bin Laden:  That's the whole point.   

Bush:  President Ahmadinejad, please stop your pursuit of nuclear power, this will only lead to your acquisition of nuclear weapons.

Ahmadinejad:  That's the whole point.

Your method only works in your imagination.  Sure, we must begin a dialogue, but only after those who will never listen are out of the way.     

Your method was to replace every dictatorship on the planet with democracies. How's that more manageable? I'll be sure to add irony tags to my next post ridiculing your so-called solutions.

In the meanwhile, this will do for you:

[McGiver]

war is in our nature.

in times of peace, we should make ready that what we need for war.-some roman general BC.

[Litigious]

war is in our nature.

in times of peace, we should make ready that what we need for war.-some roman general BC.

It's a shame that Europeans usually don't understand this anymore. They fear war so much that they're helpless when it comes.

[jonathan79]

Read my post.  I said that we need to replace the dictatorships with democracies before technological advances make it too easy to produce WMD.   

Did YOU have a point?  Or did you just need to bump in with the tired cliche' of "The Iraq war is a mess" when it has nothing to do with the point of my post?

BTW, I did not use "our leaders" in the context of the world, but in the context of the US, which I would assume was quite obvious, as no one uses "our leaders" in the context you are suggesting.   

In the same vein, I'd like to propose the following solution to today's problems:

Everybody should stop fighting since it's counter-productive. The easiest way to make them all realize that this is the case is, of course, by telling them. We must do this before it all goes too far. Now, therefore, is a good time.

My method kills fewer people than yours.

Telling them?!?!?  This is the most ridiculous solution that I have ever heard.   

Bush:  Bin Laden, please stop, your war against the west as it is only causing death and destruction.  This is counter-productive to attaining peace between the west and middle east. 

Bin Laden:  That's the whole point.   

Bush:  President Ahmadinejad, please stop your pursuit of nuclear power, this will only lead to your acquisition of nuclear weapons.

Ahmadinejad:  That's the whole point.

Your method only works in your imagination.  Sure, we must begin a dialogue, but only after those who will never listen are out of the way.     

Your method was to replace every dictatorship on the planet with democracies. How's that more manageable? I'll be sure to add irony tags to my next post ridiculing your so-called solutions.

In the meanwhile, this will do for you:

Yes, it will take a long long time, and it will be very messy, but at least it is a possibility.  To ask the question, "How's that more manageable?", is to compare reality with illusion.  My method is possible, while your method is not.  Me method is comparable with NASA planning to build a ship to that can take us to Saturn, while you suggest we fly through space with wings that we grow in laboratories and attach them to our backs.

There should be reality tags in here... 

[odeon]

Your method was to replace every dictatorship on the planet with democracies. How's that more manageable? I'll be sure to add irony tags to my next post ridiculing your so-called solutions.

In the meanwhile, this will do for you:

Yes, it will take a long long time, and it will be very messy, but at least it is a possibility.  To ask the question, "How's that more manageable?", is to compare reality with illusion.  My method is possible, while your method is not.  Me method is comparable with NASA planning to build a ship to that can take us to Saturn, while you suggest we fly through space with wings that we grow in laboratories and attach them to our backs.

There should be reality tags in here... 

Your method is just as impossible as mine in real life. What kind of resources do you think your country has? It's not a question of taking a very long time or being very messy, even though any attempt will certainly be very messy. What makes you think you can handle several dozens of dictatorships when you can't even end the war in one? What makes you think you can win? Or do you plan on nuking the ones you can't break? I'm pretty sure the guy in North Korea would nuke you right back.

That's not reality, it's la la land.

[jonathan79]

Your method was to replace every dictatorship on the planet with democracies. How's that more manageable? I'll be sure to add irony tags to my next post ridiculing your so-called solutions.

In the meanwhile, this will do for you:

Yes, it will take a long long time, and it will be very messy, but at least it is a possibility.  To ask the question, "How's that more manageable?", is to compare reality with illusion.  My method is possible, while your method is not.  Me method is comparable with NASA planning to build a ship to that can take us to Saturn, while you suggest we fly through space with wings that we grow in laboratories and attach them to our backs.

There should be reality tags in here... 

Your method is just as impossible as mine in real life. What kind of resources do you think your country has? It's not a question of taking a very long time or being very messy, even though any attempt will certainly be very messy. What makes you think you can handle several dozens of dictatorships when you can't even end the war in one? What makes you think you can win? Or do you plan on nuking the ones you can't break? I'm pretty sure the guy in North Korea would nuke you right back.

That's not reality, it's la la land.

Bush certainly screwed up making Iraq into a democracy by failing to send over an adequate number of troops.  Now, whether this was his idea or Rummy's, it certainly doesn't matter.  What he should do is send over an extra 50 - 100,000 troops and quash the infighting.  We already see shades of this working with the "surge" as they call it, and it hasn't even really begun yet. 

Notice how no one is crying out "civil war", "civil war" at the top of their lungs anymore?  Send in an overwhelming amount of troops and we can get out of there faster.  Now, for what ever reason (pride, stubborness, etc.) he thinks the war will be won on the same path we are now.

Should he do this and things get under control in Iraq, Iran will be bordered by Afghanistan and Iraq, which will be two stable semi-democracies with pro-US relations.  In ten years, Iran will be ripe for the pickings, just as they prepare to go nuclear on a full-scale level.   

Also, I said replace dictatorships BEFORE they are able to produce WMD, not after, by then it's too late.  North Korea's nukes are no more powerful than a non-nuke right now.  Are you even reading my posts???!?!?!!? 

That is the THIRD TIME you have posted a response that was based on a purposeful misread/misinterpretation of what I have said.   

I will now keep count of your replies based on purposeful misreadings/misinterpretations:

Odeon's counter: 3

[Teejay]

Bush certainly screwed up making Iraq into a democracy by failing to send over an adequate number of troops.  Now, whether this was his idea or Rummy's, it certainly doesn't matter.  What he should do is send over an extra 50 - 100,000 troops and quash the infighting.  We already see shades of this working with the "surge" as they call it, and it hasn't even really begun yet. 

Notice how no one is crying out "civil war", "civil war" at the top of their lungs anymore?  Send in an overwhelming amount of troops and we can get out of there faster.  Now, for what ever reason (pride, stubborness, etc.) he thinks the war will be won on the same path we are now.

Should he do this and things get under control in Iraq, Iran will be bordered by Afghanistan and Iraq, which will be two stable semi-democracies with pro-US relations.  In ten years, Iran will be ripe for the pickings, just as they prepare to go nuclear on a full-scale level.   

Also, I said replace dictatorships BEFORE they are able to produce WMD, not after, by then it's too late.  North Korea's nukes are no more powerful than a non-nuke right now.  Are you even reading my posts???!?!?!!? 

That is the THIRD TIME you have posted a response that was based on a purposeful misread/misinterpretation of what I have said.   

I will now keep count of your replies based on purposeful misreadings/misinterpretations:

Odeon's counter: 3

They had plans to use the Iraqi regular forces as part of the post Saddam occupation force, but they abandoned it for some reason. The insurgency has gotten it's strength through basically paying a lot of armed soldiers who did not have a job after Saddam was overthrown.

An article by Daniel Pipes, who is in my opinion the best informed commentators on middle eastern affairs, proposed a good ideas on how to go ahead in Iraq. It sounds sensible and realistic. http://www.danielpipes.org/article/4066

The Arab world is not ready yet for true liberal democracy, somewhere like Egypt and Tunisa is the best we can achieve in Iraq. There is something about Arab culture (unrelated to Islam) with it's edemnic tribalism and clannish nature which is a barrier to functioning democracy. This level of tribalism does not exist in Turkish or Iranian (including Kurdish) societies. Arabs do not have a lot of social trust outside their family in general.

[odeon]

Your method was to replace every dictatorship on the planet with democracies. How's that more manageable? I'll be sure to add irony tags to my next post ridiculing your so-called solutions.

In the meanwhile, this will do for you:

Yes, it will take a long long time, and it will be very messy, but at least it is a possibility.  To ask the question, "How's that more manageable?", is to compare reality with illusion.  My method is possible, while your method is not.  Me method is comparable with NASA planning to build a ship to that can take us to Saturn, while you suggest we fly through space with wings that we grow in laboratories and attach them to our backs.

There should be reality tags in here... 

Your method is just as impossible as mine in real life. What kind of resources do you think your country has? It's not a question of taking a very long time or being very messy, even though any attempt will certainly be very messy. What makes you think you can handle several dozens of dictatorships when you can't even end the war in one? What makes you think you can win? Or do you plan on nuking the ones you can't break? I'm pretty sure the guy in North Korea would nuke you right back.

That's not reality, it's la la land.

Bush certainly screwed up making Iraq into a democracy by failing to send over an adequate number of troops.  Now, whether this was his idea or Rummy's, it certainly doesn't matter.  What he should do is send over an extra 50 - 100,000 troops and quash the infighting.  We already see shades of this working with the "surge" as they call it, and it hasn't even really begun yet. 

Notice how no one is crying out "civil war", "civil war" at the top of their lungs anymore?  Send in an overwhelming amount of troops and we can get out of there faster.  Now, for what ever reason (pride, stubborness, etc.) he thinks the war will be won on the same path we are now.

Should he do this and things get under control in Iraq, Iran will be bordered by Afghanistan and Iraq, which will be two stable semi-democracies with pro-US relations.  In ten years, Iran will be ripe for the pickings, just as they prepare to go nuclear on a full-scale level.   

Also, I said replace dictatorships BEFORE they are able to produce WMD, not after, by then it's too late.  North Korea's nukes are no more powerful than a non-nuke right now.  Are you even reading my posts???!?!?!!? 

That is the THIRD TIME you have posted a response that was based on a purposeful misread/misinterpretation of what I have said.   

I will now keep count of your replies based on purposeful misreadings/misinterpretations:

Odeon's counter: 3

How am I misreading this:

The greater threat of terrorism is not so much a growing of idealogy.  But, their ability to acquire new technology which was impossible to acquire before (have you seen the new jumbo jet?  I can just picture the watering mouths of the next generation of hijackers), with the ever-increasing ability of countries to go nuclear, and the advances of science and biological warfare in government programs.  This is what we must stop.  This is also something that will take years to accomplish, as in order to stop this threat we must overthrow a large amount of dictatorships in order to acheive democratic stability throughout the world.

I'd say that it's pretty hard to misinterpret "we must overthrow a large amount of dictatorships", wouldn't you? That's the real la la part. You're dreaming. You can't even take care of one country (one that didn't have WMD's, I should point out), so overthrowing a "large amount of dictatorships" is as realistic as me saying "let's just all get along".

What part of this don't you get?

BTW, North Korea's nukes are in no way less dangerous than any others. They lack the missiles to efficiently send back Washington to stone age, but all you'd have to do is to place one on board a ship and New York, if not Washington, is history.

It's quite easy to make a dirty a-bomb, and North Korea's done that.

Let me know if I need to clarify things again.

[McGiver]

BTW, North Korea's nukes are in no way less dangerous than any others. They lack the missiles to efficiently send back Washington to stone age, but all you'd have to do is to place one on board a ship and New York, if not Washington, is history.

as a longshoreman, this is my greatest concern.

[Peter]

BTW, North Korea's nukes are in no way less dangerous than any others. They lack the missiles to efficiently send back Washington to stone age, but all you'd have to do is to place one on board a ship and New York, if not Washington, is history.

as a longshoreman, this is my greatest concern.

Isn't your greatest concern that your girls will date guys who're just like you were when you were younger?

[McGiver]

BTW, North Korea's nukes are in no way less dangerous than any others. They lack the missiles to efficiently send back Washington to stone age, but all you'd have to do is to place one on board a ship and New York, if not Washington, is history.

as a longshoreman, this is my greatest concern.

Isn't your greatest concern that your girls will date guys who're just like you were when you were younger?

no, its black guys, remember?

[Litigious]

I'm glad I don't have children, especially not daughters. Either they'd date a black, an Arab, Yugoslav or Albanian or someone like -- me! 

[McGiver]

....or, someone like me.