Is War Worth it!?

[Jimbo]

Electro,

If Rumsfeld or any other Govt official says "there will be no safe place in BD" how can you make the jump from that bit of rhetoric....to that we're going to be targeting civilians? Don't you think they're talking about the bad guys?

It's like you really want to think poorly of the US.

I'm not saying there won't be civilian losses, but you're saying something entirely else. You're saying that we're not going to try to minimize the loss of civilian life and that's really off the mark.

Are you honestly saying that just because there might be civilian losses, we shouldn't act? Well, gee, because of that logic we shouldn't have bombed any areas of Germany or Japan in WW2.

And how about those civilian losses in Yugoslavia, Bosnia and Somalia?? Huh? I guess we shouldn't have acted there either?

Hopefully, the new generation of precision guided munitions will help us minimize civilian losses even more than before.

As I said, if you honestly believe our leaders are purposely going to try to maximize civilian losses, you should renounce your citizenship. I know I would.

Regarding North Korea...

Who's says we're not doing anything about NK?

Perhaps if after 12 years of violating UN resolutions, attempts at assassinating our President, invading foreign countries, killing thousands of their own people and consorting with known terrorists, we'll decide to take military action against North Korea too.

Your logic escapes me.

We're not anticipating military action against Iraq JUST because he has WMD. We're considering action against Iraq because ALL attempts of negotiation, sanctions and UN resolutions after 12 years have utterly failed.

The two situations are completely different and have to be treated differently.

 

[Electro]

You're repeating yourself again.

Read my words carefully.

"If Rumsfeld or any other Govt official says "there will be no safe place in BD" how can you make the jump from that bit of rhetoric....to that we're going to be targeting civilians?"

How can we expect to avoid massive civilian casualties when we plan on dropping 800 cruise missles on baghdad in 48 hours? Did I say we are specifically targeting civilians? Geezus man WTF.

Put yourself in the position of a civilian in Iraq that does not agree with Iraq's leadership. Do you think they want to be trying to dodge our missles when there's no place to hide? Where exactly do you think 800+ missles will land exactly? I dont know if you've ever seen what Baghdad looks like but its a heavily populated area.

Stop trying to make me out to be an Anti-American and listen to what I'm saying. I'm talking about human rights.

"Your logic escapes me."

Obviously. So dont jump to conclusions. Feel free to question my logic... but dont insult me.

 

[Electro]

"The two situations are completely different and have to be treated differently."

I totally agree. But that's not how the international community sees it. Which is *the* most important element in any of this. If we go to war alone, WE WILL BE MAKING MORE ENEMIES IN THE PROCESS... more than we have now... how can this be a good thing? This stubborn "you're either with us or against us" mentality is not going to work!

ONCE AGAIN - you have not adressed my point.

-E

 

[David]

Originally posted by Electro:
neo-Hiroshimas

No one who uses psuedo-intellectual drivel like 'neo-Hiroshimas' should ever expect any rational person to take them seriously.

Please come back to reality -- your friends miss you..........

 

[Electro]

Whatever it takes for you to disqualify someone's point of view.
He makes some very intelligent observations. But of course, those are invalid because you dont like one of the words he used... sorry, but some words may not fit into your pseudo-vocabulary.

-E



[This message has been edited by Electro (edited 10 February 2003).]

 

[David]

I don't have a psuedo-vocabulary ; I have a real one. That is one of the many things that differentiates us.

 

[Electro]

I'm sure its our vocabulary that differentiates us.

You speak with such colloquial superiority... Obviously my vernacular is dissident from yours.

Don't pretend you know me. You can't form an opinion about someone solely on their posts in a friggen message board.

How about you post something in regards to what we're talking about instead of blindly discounting those that oppose your views?

Or better yet, butt out completely.

*awaits your gratuitously cunning reply*

You really like to argue about meaningless things... how about using that energy towards something that really matters?

-E

 

[David]

Originally posted by HOLLYWOOD:
I read yesterday that the book The Frightening Fraud is a bestseller in
France. This books asserts that Islamic terrorists did not drive a plane
into the Pentagon on 9/11 and that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by
terrorists from the United States aided by a high ranking official in the
federal government. Draw your own conclusions.

Draw my own conclusions? Gee, thats tough. How about this one -> "Any nation stupid enough to elect Sylvester Stallone into their National Academy of Arts and Letters is stupid enough to believe anything."

Yeah, I'll stick with that one.

 

[Jimbo]

Electro,

I truly am trying to understand your logic and posts...

Here's what you wrote...

"...Oh yeah and we're doing 'everything in our power' to prevent unceccessary civilian casualties... mmhmmm..."

I can ONLY infer from this statement that you believe that our government is NOT doing everything in our power to prevent unnecessary civilian casualties. You believe our government doesn't care about civilian losses and I disagree.

Cruise missiles are fairly precise munitions. They can almost be sent through specific windows. I don't believe they're going to be used indiscriminately. They are not "dropped". They will be used against Saddam, his army and the elite Republican guard. I expect that those 800 cruise missiles will devastate his armed forces.

There is nothing to be gained for us to target civilians. And you can also bet that any cruise missile attacks or other airborne attacks will be done at night.

You're talking about human rights? Come on now, do you think the Iraqi's have any rights with Saddam in power? That sounds like the logic used by Dave Matthews when he wrote...

"...What is the motivation? Regime change? Shouldn't that be up to the people of the region and the people of Iraq?..."

Yeah, like the Iraqis really had a chance to elect Saddam into power. I mean, that's part of the whole point here. It's so convenient how these people like Matthews forgot or omit Saddam's history.

What about our rights to live in peace without fear of anthrax, botulinin, nerve gas? What about the rights of Iraq's neighbors and our allies (i.e. Israel)?

So, what's the alternative? Inspections? We already KNOW he has these WMDs. That's not open for debate. It's a fact. Yes, war's a nasty thing. But sometime the alternative is worse.

I don't think world opinion is the most important thing, sorry. I think saving lives from Saddam's WMDs is more important than world opinion.

Remember that the French, Germans and Russians all have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo with Iraq. Why?

Because they do a TON of business with Iraq. So, in many ways, when the critics say "It's just about Oil and big business", they're correct. The French, Germans and Russians aren't opposing us because of any great humanitarian cause...they're opposing us because of their own selfish reasons.

Oh, and regarding your comment about us making enemies...at the present time there's 18 European nations on the record saying they support the United States and only 3 on record (with financial ties to Iraq) saying they have a problem. It would seem we've got the majority of Europe (and many other countries too) on our side.

[This message has been edited by Jimbo (edited 10 February 2003).]

 

[David]

You speak with such colloquial superiority... Obviously my vernacular is dissident from yours.

Do you even know that words have specific meanings?

Don't pretend you know me. You can't form an opinion about someone solely on their posts in a friggen message board.

Hasn't seemed to slow you down.

How about you post something in regards to what we're talking about instead of blindly discounting those that oppose your views?

Wait...I'm confused...are you talking about me or you here?

Or better yet, butt out completely

Love that burning intellect. Such insights. Such a skill for building a persausive arguement.

You really like to argue about meaningless things... how about using that energy towards something that really matters?

Own a mirror?

[This message has been edited by David (edited 10 February 2003).]

 

[huckster]

electro, i think you are admittedly of the minority opinion here. however, it would truly be good for us all if you could put together one single meaningful coherent and perhaps even logical argument. I'm starting to wonder, unfairly perhaps, who you 'really' are. For me, it is your poor command of the english language that results in your immediate defeat.

To answer your question, "is war worth it?". YES, if you believe in protecting ourselves and others from insane despotic dictators.

 

[Jimbo]

Huck,

I don't think it's just Electro's command of the language, I think it's his logic and knowledge.

The Hawaii comment (that it's not part of the US since it's 3000 miles away) is just one indication.

I think that he's trying to make the case that since we can't guarantee zero civilian casualties then we shouldn't act militarily against Saddam.

That's a specious argument at best. As I offered, that didn't stop the USA in the case of Germany and Japan in WW2 or in the case of Yugoslavia, Bosnia and Somalia.

The ONLY goal is to minimize the loss of human life and when you have a rabid dictator that has already shown the willingness to actually use WMDs and tried in the past to assassinate our president, and when those WMDs could kill tens of thousands of people, Electro has offered nothing in the way of a reasonable argument against using military action against Saddam.

-J

 

[Tom Larkins]

Originally posted by Electro:
Darkcyd, Its good to see that someone shares the same beliefs I do for a change...

Sometimes it seems like I'm the only one ranting and raving among most of my peers about how all this just doesn't add up...

If there was some sort of way to get "upper management" to see the light! arg!

-Electro

To use the quote above, maybe your ranting and raving doesn't add up. I believe that is very true. Lud suggested that you do some prior preperation in terms of debate to futher better your position (history, valid sources, context, etc.) would give you more credibility. I for one have enjoyed your lecture and now I know whom you are ! Your Hans Blix, UN weapons inspector and NSX owner. Its indeed and honor to have you here

 

[LJSB]

Electro from Hollywood.
"Thankfully I'm just about to turn 25 so there's no possibility for me to be drafted."
I don't believe you would serve under any circumstances.

 

[Attitude Adjuster]

Originally posted by Electro:
Read this news article "Rumsfeld: No World War III in Iraq" :

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/11/15/rumsfeld.iraq/index.html

It's obvious that we're going to war with Iraq no matter what. And its to replace Sadam.... *shakes head...*

The only way the public has a "voice" is to vote... and the electorial process doesnt even allow us to choose who goes into office! So where's the democracy in that?! If they dont listen to the protests, what *are* they listening to?? They're own motives!

Sorry just had to vent a little...

Feel free to disagree with me... I'm just very fed up with what I've been seeing on TV and reading everywhere lately.

(LUD It was a pain in the ass to have to break up my post like this.. why cant I post a long message??)

-Electro

[This message has been edited by Electro (edited 12 January 2003).]

You know, it's sad to say after ALL that has happened in the last few years how people have the "small picture" about what we are doing. Electro, maybe it's good that you are not able to join us in the military via a draft. BTW, anyone that is on the same lines as Electro, thanks..... thanks for supporting us as we are going to keep you out of harms way so yuo can practice your constitutional rights whether you like it or not. Also, just out of curiousity, what makes you think that you are on the majority? Where did you get your numbers or info from (please don't say T.V or media)?
Well, as most of us are deployed, I'm looking forward to the day that we can kick ass and remove the threats.

------------------
Kenji Ligon
91 Red CTSC NSX

[This message has been edited by Attitude Adjuster (edited 11 February 2003).]

 

[David]

Originally posted by Electro:
As for pearl harbor, Hawaii is more than 3000 miles away from the main land... that's a really great distance from california. I was just there in december. Its really amazing to me that hawaii is considered a part of the US.

Let's see here.....LA is how far from NY? Roughly 3K miles? I guess that explains why the 9/11 tragedy doesn't seem like a big deal. After all, based on your concept of geography, NY is hardly part of the same country, right?

 

[Electro]

Let's see how far we can twist my words...

this is getting good...

Let's really get creative here folks.

 

[Jimbo]

Just some fun reading for those who think Saddam isn't all that bad. Since Electro is so interested in human rights....

http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index/MDE140082001?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIESIRAQ
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2000/427/427p22d.htm
http://www.iraqfoundation.org/hr.html

I listened the other evening to Tom Brokaw (hardly a conservative fan of GWB) saying how when he visited Iraq, the people made it very clear, although they weren't able to tell him in public, that they prayed that the USA would come to their aid.

It's a shame that the only people that seem to be against military action seem to be those who simply hate Bush and those with obvious financial incentives with Iraq (i.e. Germany, France, Russia).

PS: Electro...I've noticed you would rather engage in banter than really debate the issue. That's OK. I figured you weren't really serious about this topic long ago.

 

[Electro]

"Electro...I've noticed you would rather engage in banter than really debate the issue. That's OK. I figured you weren't really serious about this topic long ago."

Jimbo, thats the most rediculous thing I've heard yet. Why else would I have posted this if I didnt really want to discuss this? I'm spending more time defending myself against the misinterpritations of my words... NO ONE as been able to accurately respond to the issues I've brought up, rather they'd perpetuate a meaningless debate about things (ie: namely personality & character traits that have NOTHING to do with the issues I'm bringing up) that I never even remotely intended for people to interprit from what I've said.

 

[Electro]

Its amazing how far everyone's willing to go to twist my words around to make me sound like i'm saying something I'm really not. And of course it matters not what I say... My "credibility" is gone (david chop this one up as much as u like- u can even re-arange the words to suit your vices)... as is everyone else's "credibility" as well... simply because of the aforementioned fact above.

(just for clarification for those that are unable to follow me - aforementioned facts meaning IN THIS POST... I am not referring to anything else anyone as said or not said...implied or not implied... in this thread or not, on this board or not, or elsewhere.)

I'm really getting bored with this discussion ...its really not doing me or anyone else any good to continually go in circles... so how about we end it. I really don't care.

Lud feel free to do us all a favor and either delete this thread or lock it... There's no saving this one.

-Electro

 

[Carguy!]

Originally posted by Electro:
Its amazing how far everyone's willing to go to twist my words around to make me sound like i'm saying something I'm really not. And of course it matters not what I say... My "credibility" is gone (david chop this one up as much as u like- u can even re-arange the words to suit your vices)... as is everyone else's "credibility" as well... simply because of the aforementioned fact above.

(just for clarification for those that are unable to follow me - aforementioned facts meaning IN THIS POST... I am not referring to anything else anyone as said or not said...implied or not implied... in this thread or not, on this board or not, or elsewhere.)

I'm really getting bored with this discussion ...its really not doing me or anyone else any good to continually go in circles... so how about we end it. I really don't care.

Lud feel free to do us all a favor and either delete this thread or lock it... There's no saving this one.

-Electro

Since I haven't posted to this thread previously I hope I am not labeled as someone who is trying to twist your words. Over and over again I have seen people post specific responses to your statements and you reply that they didn't understand what you meant and they misinterpeted what you were trying to express. The bottom line is if almost everyone seems against you maybe it is you that is causing the problem.

I find it funny when I read someone in the media stating that we need to do some tough negotiating and not fight.

I've always wanted to try something with one of these "tough negotiating liberals." Tell him that my intent is to hit him over the head with a stick, but agree to "negotiate." I'd let him talk for a while, then hit him over the head. "Sorry," I'd say, "but I'm willing to return to the negotiations." Let him negotiate a little more, then hit him over then head again. Apologize. Promise not to do it again. Return to the negotiations. Hit him again.

I wonder how many times I could whack him over the head before he realizes that some problems simply can't be solved by negotiation when one of the parties refuses to compromise? 5? 10? The former USSR broke every single treaty they ever signed with us, yet the liberals were always ready to sign another. Why are we in trouble with North Korea right now? Because the treaty they signed was worthless, yet the liberals propose as a solution - another treaty!

Let's see how my theory holds up. See if one of the liberals in here wants to "negotiate" with me.



[This message has been edited by Carguy! (edited 11 February 2003).]

 

[Jimbo]

Carguy,

I doubt it.

I tried to have an intelligent conversation with Electro, but he didn't respond to any of my counterpoints.

 

[David]

Originally posted by Electro:
u can even re-arange the words to suit your vices

Please see my above post about words having specific meanings.

Electro, its pretty obvious that several people in this thread are anxiously awaiting your first cogent, articualte point. Post one and we will respond accordingly.

Several of us have done the same and you have ignored them, so the ball is in your court. Say something rational and perhaps you will get a rational response.In an effort to help you, I posted a format for you to use earlier in this thread. Lud also offered the same advice.

Oh, and you may want to use the correct words. It helps when you want to be taken seriously.

Good luck.

[This message has been edited by David (edited 12 February 2003).]

 

[LJSB]

Originally posted by Carguy!:

I've always wanted to try something with one of these "tough negotiating liberals." Tell him that my intent is to hit him over the head with a stick, but agree to "negotiate." I'd let him talk for a while, then hit him over the head. "Sorry," I'd say, "but I'm willing to return to the negotiations." Let him negotiate a little more, then hit him over then head again. Apologize. Promise not to do it again. Return to the negotiations. Hit him again.

This reminds me of a episode of a old TV show called "Kung Fu".
Kane was listening to a pacifist who was saying if someone if someone intended to hit you with a stick that you only had two choices. Either let them hit you or run.
Kane said there was a third alternative, "take his stick away".

 

[Spencer]

Well, here we go again. Like Dracula getting out of the coffin...here goes my favorite thread taking on a life of its own again.

So Electro, let me pose (sincerely) the following question. How would you SPECIFICALLY ensure that Saddam's ability to pass WOMD to a terrorist cell is positively eliminated...short of war? Other than the deluded French and Germans (note the rest of NATO is with the U.S.) most of the world is agreed that he has "them" and that further inspections will not work. So what EXACTLY would you suggest? An embargo? Pressure from neighboring countries? Fomenting a revolution? More overflights? A CIA hit? Take your time framing a response, and note that all of the previous techniques have been tried for all or part of the last 12 years...to no avail. Also note that for my theoretical question, merely coming home and relying on fate for Saddam to "stay in the box" is probably not real a solution, as Iran and Kuwait both were operating under that premise...right before they were invaded. So...short of exile for him, his sons, and the most Baath party leadership, what SPECIFICALLY do you propose to decisively eliminate the threat? Please recognize that most of us realize that you don't like Bush and that you don't like war, and that you think it's "about the oil" and the many other points that you've made, however, true gentleman can agree to disagree about these and other issues. BUT my question stands...how would you, SPECIFICALLY, eliminate the possibility of him passing Anthrax, VX, Sarin, and/or (one day) nukes to a terrorist cell if we don't invade his county? (And please also recognize that if you think this is right wing paranoia, there's a border guard a few miles from me who caught Ahmed Ressam trying to enter the U.S. with high explosives in December 1999, who'd be pleased to argue the point with you.)