'War on Terror'

[jonathan79]

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.

*Yawn*  *stretch*  *yawn*

All your replies boid down to this:  "But the Iraq war is going badly!!!!"

And?  I have already conceded the point.

"YEah, but, its like, going badly!!!"

And??  We need to change plans, not abandon the game.

"Yeah, but , don't you realize the Iraq war is going BADLY!!!!"""

*yawn*  *stretch*

Your equation for world politics is this: If p > q     If (war is going badly) > (The WAR was wrong) therefore no other action will ever ever work.

It never occurs to you that: If (war is going badly) > (The PLAN was wrong) therefore change the plan, perhaps it is not: If p > q, but If p > r.   

I don't see what's so hard to understand.  We need to change the plan, not throw our hands in the air and run, and take on a defeatest attitude that their is nothing that we can do about islamist facism, which is what you advise.  We may have lost a battle, but that doesn't mean you stop fighting everything (just ask Russia about not giving up). 

BTW, North Korea's nuke was only about 550 tons of TNT, while the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima was around 13,000, while hydrogen bombs are around 500,000 tons of TNT.  So, it is a fact that they are not as dangerous as other nukes.   

Unfortunately, your point about placing them on a ship is correct.  Which is why we need to fight, and keep fighting.  As you yourself pointed out, we need to stop whole countries, while they need to simply place a single bomb on a single ship.  And, should they have the chance to do so, no amount of talking would change their minds.  The only way to stop them is to kill them. 

We have already replaced the Taliban in Afghanistan, and should Bush decide to wake up to the reality of Iraq, we'll have installed two democracies in a little less than 5 years.  Also, Libya has decided to come clean, which is just as good as installing a democracy.n  Bush also managed to sideline Arafat before he died, which everyone said was impossible.  I don't see this impossibility you're talking about.       

Also, the point we were arguing about (in case you forgot, you can go back and read the posts) was that you said we could not replace dictatorships because they would nuke us, to which I replied, which is why we have to replace them BEFORE they acquire WMD. 

Hmmm...I guess that was a little easier to misinterpret/misrepresent than you thought...

That should be #4, but I'll let that one slide   

[odeon]

Jonathan,

The Iraq war is being lost, even as I write this. No "change of plans" will change that. There are lots of reasons to why it won't, among them that your country has limited resources and patience, yet another that American troops are dying every day (never mind the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians), there are still enough folks who remember Vietnam, and so on, etc, and more, ad nauseam.

That wasn't my point, however. The current Iraq situation was merely an example of a war that is going very badly for the US, yet you propose starting a few dozen others (I boldly assumed that you were in fact talking about more than a few select, specially chosen dictators that your current administration a) has defined as dictators, and b) hates).

That's naive in the extreme. I can only assume that your grasp of reality is as weak as your reading comprehension.

A further case in point is your unwillingness to concede a point wihtout feeling the need to somehow attempt to diminish that point: a small, dirty a-bomb, no matter if it's several times smaller than the Hiroshima bomb, is capable of so much damage that yes; it, in itself, is a reasonable guarantee against an untimely replacement of a dictatorship with a democracy. There are so many options with even one bomb, and they are so easy to make. What do you suppose the cold war was about, and why do you think countries like Israel and Pakistan got them as soon as they could?

The fact is that the US cannot do what you propose; they can't afford it. They'd be caught in extinguishing fires all around the globe while bigger ones started closer to home.

[McGiver]

[odeon]

Can I have some of that popcorn? This thread is boring me to tears.

[McGiver]

if it remains circular...on bith sides, i may well move along.
but for now it has piqued my interest somewhat.

[jonathan79]

Jonathan,

The Iraq war is being lost, even as I write this. No "change of plans" will change that. There are lots of reasons to why it won't, among them that your country has limited resources and patience, yet another that American troops are dying every day (never mind the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians), there are still enough folks who remember Vietnam, and so on, etc, and more, ad nauseam.

That wasn't my point, however. The current Iraq situation was merely an example of a war that is going very badly for the US, yet you propose starting a few dozen others (I boldly assumed that you were in fact talking about more than a few select, specially chosen dictators that your current administration a) has defined as dictators, and b) hates).

That's naive in the extreme. I can only assume that your grasp of reality is as weak as your reading comprehension.

A further case in point is your unwillingness to concede a point wihtout feeling the need to somehow attempt to diminish that point: a small, dirty a-bomb, no matter if it's several times smaller than the Hiroshima bomb, is capable of so much damage that yes; it, in itself, is a reasonable guarantee against an untimely replacement of a dictatorship with a democracy. There are so many options with even one bomb, and they are so easy to make. What do you suppose the cold war was about, and why do you think countries like Israel and Pakistan got them as soon as they could?

The fact is that the US cannot do what you propose; they can't afford it. They'd be caught in extinguishing fires all around the globe while bigger ones started closer to home.

Perhaps this thread is boring you because you aren't paying any attention to my posts, or exagerating/manipulating my position. 

To clarify, what exactly is your definition of America "winning" the war?  All we need to do is stabalize it enough so that a government is able to function (as they are somewhat functioning), and is only threatened by a minority of the population.  I am curious to know where your benchmark is, that you not would declare that America lost the war. 

Also, where did I say I wanted to start a "few dozen others", and also, we obviously don't need to replace those dictators who are not pursuing nuclear or biological weapons program.  You "boldly assume", but you boldy assume wrongly. I seem to spend a lot of time correcting your assumptions. 

I have said that we need to replace them BEFORE they get the bomb.  North Korea is more complicated than simply invade >  they nuke us.  Notice that Israel and Pakistan have not used them yet, yet are engaged in constant battles?  Israel being in several wars?  Hasn't stopped anyone from attacking Israel, which makes it much more plausible that other factors are at work.  I'm sure invading NK is still an option, but in 5-6 years, when they perfect the bomb, it certainly won't. 

The fact is, is that the US can very well do what I propose.  But, they still can't talk a Christian out of being Christian. 

*yawn*   

[odeon]

This thread is boring because your arguments are hollow and without merit. You'd better read up on the subject because you really are naive, and not only do you not understand what I'm saying, you also do not have a clue about what you are saying.

I think we should all consider ourselves lucky because you're not in any position of power and cannot possible make any of your moronic views happen.

[Litigious]

The boring thing is that guys like Jonathan, Zer0 and I don't rule the world. Imagine all the fun there'd be. 

[odeon]

Imagine how dead we would be.

[Scrapheap]

The Iraq war is being lost, even as I write this. No "change of plans" will change that.

I think this is proof that you're seeing the whole situation through rose colored glasses.

[odeon]

The Iraq war is being lost, even as I write this. No "change of plans" will change that.

I think this is proof that you're seeing the whole situation through rose colored glasses.

How's facing the reality of 60,000+ civilians dead since the war began seeing the situation through rose-coloured glasses?

I didn't say anyone was winning the war.

[Scrapheap]

The Iraq war is being lost, even as I write this. No "change of plans" will change that.

I think this is proof that you're seeing the whole situation through rose colored glasses.

How's facing the reality of 60,000+ civilians dead since the war began seeing the situation through rose-coloured glasses?

I didn't say anyone was winning the war.

War is destructive and even the "winners" incur heavy losses. Sometimes having one less dead guy than your enemy constitutes victory.

All the dead since the war began still don't equal the number Sadam killed.

[jonathan79]

This thread is boring because your arguments are hollow and without merit. You'd better read up on the subject because you really are naive, and not only do you not understand what I'm saying, you also do not have a clue about what you are saying.

I think we should all consider ourselves lucky because you're not in any position of power and cannot possible make any of your moronic views happen.

Was there a logical argument in there somewhere? 

I seem to understand very well what you (and I) are saying as you never refute my observations of how you misread my posts.

When you can paste the exact post as a response to the person who's saying it without changing a word, it doesn't bode well for the intelligence of the poster.  I now say to you:

This thread is boring because your arguments are hollow and without merit. You'd better read up on the subject because you really are naive, and not only do you not understand what I'm saying, you also do not have a clue about what you are saying.

I think we should all consider ourselves lucky because you're not in any position of power and cannot possible make any of your moronic views happen.

 

/Brings back the feeling of saying: I know you are, but what am I?
//ah, thirdgrade debates; how I've missed you...
///BTW, I know you are, but what am I? 
 

[McGiver]

after 911 i was talking to my mom at my daughters birthday party.

my mom says that she thought we should drop a bomb on the middle east and wipe them off the face of the earth.
a jewish lady who happened to be sitting nearby said, "but i am partial to israel!"


my mom, always putting her foot in her mouth.

[Calandale]

after 911 i was talking to my mom at my daughters birthday party.

my mom says that she thought we should drop a bomb on the middle east and wipe them off the face of the earth.
a jewish lady who happened to be sitting nearby said, "but i am partial to israel!"

Eh. Don't move into a bad neighborhood if you don't expect a little trouble.