Americans and Torture

[MudGrrl]

http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/061108/davies.gif

[LordOpie]

oh, thought this was going to be about OMGF's fetishes.

[MudGrrl]

I didn't say anything about rubber chickens, did I?

[InsideMan]

I approve of torture, when arabs murder thousands of inocent Americans we must do what we must to make sure these things never happen again. We must make our enemies never even concieve the idea of attacking the U.S. again.

[Silver]

I approve of torture, when arabs murder thousands of inocent Americans we must do what we must to make sure these things never happen again. We must make our enemies never even concieve the idea of attacking the U.S. again.

Christ...if you're going to advocate torture and genocide, at least learn to spell. Hitler and Stalin could spell, you know. :disgust:

[$tinkle]

Christ...if you're going to advocate torture and genocide, at least learn to spell. Hitler and Stalin could spell, you know. :disgust:did he misspell "ass-raping koranimals"?

[RenegadeRick]

I approve of torture, when arabs murder thousands of inocent Americans we must do what we must to make sure these things never happen again. We must make our enemies never even concieve the idea of attacking the U.S. again.

Please clarify your statement. In what specific situations do you approve of torture? Any situation?

Which individuals should be tortured? Anyone?

Why do you approve of torture? What benefits or results do you expect torture to bring our nation?

I eagerly await your well-reasoned reply.

[$tinkle]

pardon my nosey-parkerness; i'd like to add something to the conversationPlease clarify your statement. In what specific situations do you approve of torture? Any situation?when i'm doing itWhich individuals should be tortured? Anyone?this is highly inefficient; employ economy-of-scale tacticsWhy do you approve of torture?i'm just trying to live up to our global reputation as terroristsWhat benefits or results do you expect torture to bring our nation?cures erectile disfunction (yes, i'm projecting)I eagerly await your well-reasoned reply.whatever.
i already voted.

[RenegadeRick]

welpers, $tinkle.

If you need some help getting the lead back in your pencil, just try google: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ed.

:poster_oops:

There is no need to go around torturin' folks jus cuz you have a personal issue the old lady is hasslin' ya about.

[InsideMan]

Christ...if you're going to advocate torture and genocide, at least learn to spell. Hitler and Stalin could spell, you know. :disgust:

spellmonkey.com

[Toshi]

I approve of torture, when arabs murder thousands of inocent Americans we must do what we must to make sure these things never happen again. We must make our enemies never even concieve the idea of attacking the U.S. again.
you are the reason america is going down the tubes. you deserve the future that you are bringing about.

[Reactor]

you are the reason america is going down the tubes. you deserve the future that you are bringing about.

Unfortunately my daughter is going to live in it. I served in the military and I never thought I see the day when an american president condones torture, kidnapping, lying to congress, avoids due process, wiretapping, and is seen by an ally as being more dangerous than a certifiably insane foreign leader with nuclear weapons.

[Blockhead]

you are the reason america is going down the tubes. you deserve the future that you are bringing about.

Actualy preists railing young boys, fags getting married, illiterate presidents, crap weed thats way over priced, law suits on every corner, killing babies as a means of birth control, pandering to insano aaaaarabs, giving a **** what french people think, the inability to make a decent car, the notion that political parties actually give a damn about the people they represent, special interests, the fact that cheney can have a gun when it takes me months to get one, Doc not making bikes, french fries from mcdonalds, global warming or the lack there of depending on who you talk to, the fact that people from new zealand can express their views in this country, fear of silly koreans, Don Rumsfeld, Nacy pelosi, PETA, the urban population(you know who I'm talking about), Mark Foley, the 3 major news channels, dancing with the stars, Brittany spears,the internet, and most of all. TOOLS LIKE YOU! are the reason this countries going to hell, but what do I care. Im driving the bus. Enjoy the ride:)

:pirate2:

[Changleen]

Actualy preists railing young boys, fags getting married, illiterate presidents, crap weed thats way over priced, law suits on every corner, killing babies as a means of birth control, pandering to insano aaaaarabs, giving a **** what french people think, the inability to make a decent car, the notion that political parties actually give a damn about the people they represent, special interests, the fact that cheney can have a gun when it takes me months to get one, Doc not making bikes, french fries from mcdonalds, global warming or the lack there of depending on who you talk to, the fact that people from new zealand can express their views in this country, fear of silly koreans, Don Rumsfeld, Nacy pelosi, PETA, the urban population(you know who I'm talking about), Mark Foley, the 3 major news channels, dancing with the stars, Brittany spears,the internet, and most of all. TOOLS LIKE YOU! are the reason this countries going to hell, but what do I care. Im driving the bus. Enjoy the ride:)

:pirate2:Wow, you hate everything about America! Maybe you should kill yourself. You sound pretty retarded so I'm sure no-one would care.

[Blockhead]

I love everything about america except you douches sitting on the innerweb bitching about. Wanna be american, shut the **** up, bend over and take it, thats the america. What would you know about that though. Right buddy:)

[Reactor]

I love everything about america except you douches sitting on the innerweb bitching about. Wanna be american, shut the **** up, bend over and take it, thats the america. What would you know about that though. Right buddy:)



You should seek help for your obsession with taking it in the rear.

[Westy]

I love everything about america except you douches sitting on the innerweb bitching about. Wanna be american, shut the **** up, bend over and take it, thats the america. What would you know about that though. Right buddy:)


Let me guess, you were a Congressional page?

[Changleen]

So if anything bad happens, don't try and fix it, just accept it and STFU?

Well, after careful consideration of your proposal, I think that it sucks balls. I think I'll keep on making a point of thing that I find to be sub-par if that's OK with you. You're just going to have to just bend over and take that too I think.

[Reactor]

Let me guess, you were a Congressional page?

Writing style and limited cognitive ability points to "him" being a 15-17 yo white male, possible older butt with some form of retardation.

[RenegadeRick]

spellmonkey.com

... so you had time to provide us with this lengthy and insightful reply, but not enough time to explain your views on torture? :disgust1:

Come on... sell it to me. Make me a believer. If you believe in torture, surely you must be able to explain the benefits.

Or maybe :imstupid: for thinking you could.

[Toshi]

I love everything about america except you douches sitting on the innerweb bitching about. Wanna be american, shut the **** up, bend over and take it, thats the america. What would you know about that though. Right buddy:)
you are the inspiration of john kerry's comment:

"You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

my guess is that you flicked one too many spitballs back in the day.

:poster_oops:

[valve bouncer]

I love everything about america except you douches sitting on the innerweb bitching about. Wanna be american, shut the **** up, bend over and take it, thats the america. What would you know about that though. Right buddy:)Bloody hell, the PAWN forum brings all the worms out of the woodwork. I'm guessing your future here is not bright.

[Blockhead]

So if anything bad happens, don't try and fix it, just accept it and STFU?

Well, after careful consideration of your proposal, I think that it sucks balls. I think I'll keep on making a point of thing that I find to be sub-par if that's OK with you. You're just going to have to just bend over and take that too I think.

Acualy being an american all my life I've learned that this country is yours for the taking if you keep your bussiness your own and just do what you do without drawing much attention to yourself

Either way, I made that list rather jokingly as more of a fishing expedition tahn anything if you will, I know you, you were more than happy to bite. Your not from here, yet by your own words you say that my list is everything that is america. SImple fact is that list really is how the world see's america, its the face Tv puts on us, its the way we're projected throughout the world. Pretty F'n sad considering 99.9% of us have no say in the matter. what would you think if some new zealender posted up a list like that, and some fvck from the other side of the world who had nothing to do with your country said DAMN you hate everything that is new zealand like they actualy understood what average life was like in that country. Its a sorry badge to wear and certainly nothing to be proud of, yet here we all are saddled with it like we actually have a choice. Lets get real, what are we gonna do shoot GW? Theres an even bigger tool waiting to take his place. I guess I'm just tired of the world always pointing and saying you Americans. Simple fact is you people dont know a damn thing about us americans. NO voice, No opinion, just numbers in a system lead to believe we actually mattter. Nigga Please. Couldnt change it if we tried

[BurlyShirley]

Well thats a good point I suppose.

[$tinkle]

I love everything about america except you douches sitting on the innerweb bitching about. Wanna be american, shut the **** up, bend over and take it, thats the america. What would you know about that though. Right buddy:)dude, we need to get drunk & set fire to some kittens.

then we'll shave each other & see what happens. you're a roadie, ja?

[Changleen]

Acualy being an american all my life I've learned that this country is yours for the taking if you keep your bussiness your own and just do what you do without drawing much attention to yourself

Either way, I made that list rather jokingly as more of a fishing expedition tahn anything if you will, I know you, you were more than happy to bite. Your not from here, yet by your own words you say that my list is everything that is america. SImple fact is that list really is how the world see's america, its the face Tv puts on us, its the way we're projected throughout the world. Pretty F'n sad considering 99.9% of us have no say in the matter. what would you think if some new zealender posted up a list like that, and some fvck from the other side of the world who had nothing to do with your country said DAMN you hate everything that is new zealand like they actualy understood what average life was like in that country. Its a sorry badge to wear and certainly nothing to be proud of, yet here we all are saddled with it like we actually have a choice. Lets get real, what are we gonna do shoot GW? Theres an even bigger tool waiting to take his place. I guess I'm just tired of the world always pointing and saying you Americans. Simple fact is you people dont know a damn thing about us americans. NO voice, No opinion, just numbers in a system lead to believe we actually mattter. Nigga Please. Couldnt change it if we triedJust so you know I did actually live in the US for a few years. Sedona AZ and San Fran mainly. Whilst I understand where you're coming from and I have actually met many people like you who are very frustrated about their lack of 'voice' in the US, it's not totally true. You can change stuff if you want to. You can easily change your own reality for a start even f you can't change anyone else's. Honestly, if you are so frustrated, just move. I moved out of the UK, to the States and then on to NZ. Just do it. It's not as hard as you think. Ever fancied living in Jamaica? Just try it. At least that way Bush doesn't get your tax dollars anymore.

[Blockhead]

I love my home, just hate the people running it. EVery see the grand canyon or go snow boarding in colorado, fly fishing in montana, DH'n at plattekill, new years eve in NYC. I have I dont want to leave these things, just the people in charge of destroying them

[Changleen]

Those are all very cool things, but please remember there is a planet full of equally cool stuff.

[sanjuro]

I approve of torture, when arabs murder thousands of inocent Americans we must do what we must to make sure these things never happen again. We must make our enemies never even concieve the idea of attacking the U.S. again.

That's funny. Ignoring international laws is exactly what terrorists do, and their justification is to prevent anyone from attacking whatever group of people they are trying to defend.

[manimal]

....and San Fran mainly.

i thought you said you lived in the US for a while? :huh: ;)

[narlus]

san fran is one of the top 3 cities in the us (NYC and portland OR being the other two). if i had the cash i'd live there in a nanosecond.

[narlus]

is blockhead a N* alter ego w/ even worse spelling?

[Changleen]

i thought you said you lived in the US for a while? :huh: ;)AZ made up for that!

[sanjuro]

I did actually live in the US for a few years. San Fran mainly. i thought you said you lived in the US for a while? :huh: ;)
http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~raza/wtf.jpg

[JohnE]

I am almost reading Colossus29 in his posting, I wonder if he is a master of the Weaver stance?

[DaveW]

I am almost reading Colossus29 in his posting, I wonder if he is a master of the Weaver stance?

Can you do a weaver stance whilst simultaneously bending over and STFUing?

[I Are Baboon]

is blockhead a N* alter ego w/ even worse spelling?

Good chance it's The Amish, although I can not confirm that 100% at this point.

[ALEXIS_DH]

what happened wo the amish? did he get banned?

[llkoolkeg]

san fran is one of the top 3 cities in the us (NYC and portland OR being the other two). if i had the cash i'd live there in a nanosecond.

If I was going to live in a CA San, it'd be Diego rather than Francisco.

[valve bouncer]

Good chance it's The Amish, although I can not confirm that 100% at this point.
I dunno, the amish was a pretty funny guy for a frother. Haven't seen too many chuckles from this bloke

[JohnE]

Can you do a weaver stance whilst simultaneously bending over and STFUing?

Can you lick my hoop if I do?

[valve bouncer]

my hoop
Partsbaraism alert.:monkeydance:

[DaveW]

Can you lick my hoop if I do?

Not personally :disgust1:

:lighten: .... But if it makes you feel better I'll get a priest and a congressman to come along to your demonstration of it.

[JohnE]

So you can arrange it?

[DaveW]

I just realised why rockwool has not posted in this thread...... It would be an elegant glasshouse (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/11/09/sweden14548.htm). :bonk:

[$tinkle]

In a decision made public today, the UN Human Rights Committee ruled that diplomatic assurances against torture did not provide an effective safeguard against ill-treatment in the case of an asylum seeker transferred from Sweden to Egypt by CIA operatives in December 2001.aww, c'mon; that was just part of the first couple of months of the world's "good will" we subsequently "squandered".

it'll be half a decade next month, which is well before we "started creating terrorists by invading Iraq & torturing at abu-graib & camp x-ray"

[InsideMan]

That's funny. Ignoring international laws is exactly what terrorists do, and their justification is to prevent anyone from attacking whatever group of people they are trying to defend.


you people are not thinking outside the box, getting the big picture here.

We are living in a new age, the way we play the game has changed, since the geneva convention was written how many decades ago. we must fight fire with fire.

im tired of the rest of the world looking at us and laughing. We need to be the bad a$$'s on the block again, maybe we need to drop a nuke on N. Korea/Iran to show we mean business.

You people are telling me we cant beat up a few Jihadist's for intel, after they murdered thousands of Americans.

[reflux]

You people are telling me we cant beat up a few Jihadist's for intel, after they murdered thousands of Americans.
You mean to tell the average Middle Eastern that they can't kill a few white men after we have killed (directly or indirectly) countless thousands of his countrymen? I'm not saying that I agree, but I understand.

[InsideMan]

Will you think the same once they push the button on a nuke smuggled in a major U.S. city? and the thousands from 9/11 become millions, we must do what we have to now to make sure this day never ever becomes a reality. I work in the intel world and believe me their is some scary stuff out their you will never ever ever know about.

[kidwoo]

im tired of the rest of the world looking at us and laughing. We need to be the bad a$$'s on the block again.

That's exactly why they're laughing.


Actually rolling their eyes would be more accurate.


You probably don't see that though, being inside men frequently on fire island.




jeezus.....who let hannity in?

[Changleen]

I work in the intel world You guys are fvcked.

[kidwoo]

I work in the intel world and believe me their is some scary stuff out their you will never ever ever know about.

No wonder our intelligence sucks. They keep hiring illiterates.


Seriously.......you're under 20 aren't you?

[ALEXIS_DH]

You guys are fvcked.

changleen, lets make up a scenario just for the sake of it, to test how your position fares at borderline insanity situations.

lets say there is an 70% chance threatening razing a couple towns will effectively stop any future attack and deaths from happening on both sides

from an strictly utilitarian view..... would it be worth it???
a threat (if effective, nobody needs to die) worse than several thousand people death a year, every year, basically since the last 50 years???

[reflux]

Will you think the same once they push the button on a nuke smuggled in a major U.S. city? and the thousands from 9/11 become millions, we must do what we have to now to make sure this day never ever becomes a reality. I work in the intel world and believe me their is some scary stuff out their you will never ever ever know about.
So our intelligence organizations are so bad that we have to resort to torture and violation of our civil liberties?
1) Torture is PROVEN to not work. Said persons will say anything to escape additional torture.
2) Freedom = civil liberties (you know, the basic rights granted to each and every citizen)

Wtf mate?

[Silver]

im tired of the rest of the world looking at us and laughing. We need to be the bad a$$'s on the block again, maybe we need to drop a nuke on N. Korea/Iran to show we mean business.



I love the smell of genocide in the morning.

If you're totally crazy anyways, why not drop the nuke on Israel? Then you could hang out with Mel Gibson and give each other handjobs while talking about how cool you are...

[ALEXIS_DH]

I love the smell of genocide in the morning.

If you're totally crazy anyways, why not drop the nuke on Israel? Then you could hang out with Mel Gibson and give each other handjobs while talking about how cool you are...

israel got nukes too.
sad thing is, in the real world, things gotta break by the weakest link.

[Old Man G Funk]

Will you think the same once they push the button on a nuke smuggled in a major U.S. city? and the thousands from 9/11 become millions, we must do what we have to now to make sure this day never ever becomes a reality.
The surest way to be safe is to institute a police state. Is that what you are advocating?

[Changleen]

changleen, lets make up a scenario just for the sake of it, to test how your position fares at borderline insanity situations.

lets say there is an 70% chance threatening razing a couple towns will effectively stop any future attack and deaths from happening on both sidesIn what crazy world is this where threatening violence against a group of people make things better? Do you watch the news?from an strictly utilitarian view..... would it be worth it???
a threat (if effective, nobody needs to die) worse than several thousand people death a year, every year, basically since the last 50 years???Sorry, but your premise is basically ridiculous.

As we have seen, MAD worked quite well for a while, but that might have just been luck, and I personally don't much feel like re-entering such a situation.

However, in the Middle East as you appear to be talking about, it is the very thing you are suggesting which propagates violence.

[Changleen]

Will you think the same once they push the button on a nuke smuggled in a major U.S. city? and the thousands from 9/11 become millions, we must do what we have to now to make sure this day never ever becomes a reality.If you really believe that is a threat, how about implementing searching of all cargo freighters entering the US? George doesn't seem too keen on that though. Is he really just a complete idiot or is the threat actually not that real? Or maybe it's just that the free flow of $$ > American lives?

[ALEXIS_DH]

In what crazy world is this where threatening violence against a group of people make things better?

one of the reasons societies invented governments, laws and punishment exists is because of that.


Do you watch the news?Sorry, but your premise is basically ridiculous.

everyday, read a crapload of stuff on the subject. from the israeli perspective and the arab perspective... and it only gets me more convinced that they have irreconcileable differences.

As we have seen, MAD worked quite well for a while, but that might have just been luck, and I personally don't much feel like re-entering such a situation.

you have MAD on one side... and many thousands of people dying per year consistenly over the last 50 years.
thats a nice pitfall on your morality that prefers the 2nd by default over the first.

However, in the Middle East as you appear to be talking about, it is the very thing you are suggesting which propagates violence.

thats a rather simplistic view of the middle east issue.
unilateral dissengatement and cease fires without warnings did nothing to improve the situation in the long run, other than giving terrorists time to re-group and re-inforcing their idea that their everyday violence is getting them somewhere.

in fact, i put 10 bucks on hezbollah not bugging israel for quite a while after the latest smackdown.
am pretty sure olmert´s not so subreptitious objective was to send a pretty believable threat to future events with that.

[Old Man G Funk]

thats a rather simplistic view of the middle east issue.
unilateral dissengatement and cease fires without warnings did nothing to improve the situation in the long run, other than giving terrorists time to re-group and re-inforcing their idea that their everyday violence is getting them somewhere.

in fact, i put 10 bucks on hezbollah not bugging israel for quite a while after the latest smackdown.
am pretty sure olmert´s not so subreptitious objective was to send a pretty believable threat to future events with that.

That's a pretty flimsy assumption, but let's say for the sake of argument that it is true.

Olmert now has threatened Hezbollah, and they have temporarily backed down. Have you actually gained anything? Whether they rise up and kill umpteen people today or tomorrow, does it make much difference? Have any of the problems actually been fixed, or simply deferred? Will that deferring cause the next retaliation to be worse because bad feelings are stewing?

Also, let's not forget that Olmert actually had to commit crimes against humanity in order to make the threat work well enough for what you are thinking is only a temporary reprieve. He had to become just as bad as Hezbollah, if not worse, in order to simply get a delay. Wow, that's some victory there. Yeah, we could go out and just start executing people at random, and it might give some people pause before they take up arms against us, but is it really worth it? Is the cost to our humanity and our morality really worth it?

[Changleen]

one of the reasons societies invented governments, laws and punishment exists is because of that.So now you are equating the rule of law with threatening an entire population with collective punishment by death? Nice. What was that you were saying about morals?
everyday, read a crapload of stuff on the subject. from the israeli perspective and the arab perspective... and it only gets me more convinced that they have irreconcileable differences.I think maybe the politicians have the irreconcilable differences, not the people.you have MAD on one side... and many thousands of people dying per year consistenly over the last 50 years.
thats a nice pitfall on your morality that prefers the 2nd by default over the first.How did you get a 'preference' out of that? Alexis, the threat of collective punishment has been used and even carried out in the Israel/Palestinian situation and it has only served to perpetuate the violence. LAST WEEK Israel used tanks to shell the **** out of a village, killing many civilians and wounding many more, guess what? It just made the other side even more pissed! What part of that don't you get?thats a rather simplistic view of the middle east issue.
unilateral dissengatement and cease fires without warnings did nothing to improve the situation in the long run, other than giving terrorists time to re-group and re-inforcing their idea that their everyday violence is getting them somewhere.Which side are the terrorists Alexis? Seriously. The ones who reign death on entire villages? Until you can approach the problem without deeming one side 'evil' and the other 'good' you're never going to get anywhere.
in fact, i put 10 bucks on hezbollah not bugging israel for quite a while after the latest smackdown."Smackdown"? You mean the one where Israel was forced to withdraw without achieving any of it's stated goals? All they did was kill a bunch of people, mostly completely innocent, and shocker of all shockers, now the entire population of Lebanon hates them rather than just Hezbollah members. Way to go.
am pretty sure olmert´s not so subreptitious objective was to send a pretty believable threat to future events with that.That's why he was forced to apologise for the whole thing and his government nearly collapsed.

[ALEXIS_DH]

So now you are equating the rule of law with threatening an entire population with collective punishment by death? Nice. What was that you were saying about morals?

the rule of law is pretty much the monopoly of violence by a government that tells you "if you dont behave, i´ll pwn you!".

my extensiion is, the rule of "wars-you-start" should be "if you start a war and loose, accept that and stop pushing for a war you cant posibly win forever, otherwise dont bitch when you get bombed".
i´d think thats a fair and ethical behaviour for the loosing side that started a war.


How did you get a 'preference' out of that? Alexis, the threat of collective punishment has been used and even carried out in the Israel/Palestinian situation and it has only served to perpetuate the violence. LAST WEEK Israel used tanks to shell the **** out of a village, killing many civilians and wounding many more, guess what? It just made the other side even more pissed! What part of that don't you get?

the preferrence is that you wouldnt even think about giving the threat a shot... not even if it means it has a chance at saving lives in the end.
plus that part that thinks this will go on forever. it just wont.
thats pretty much how wars end, when one side cannot or isnt willing to fight anymore basically out of fear.

Which side are the terrorists Alexis? Seriously. The ones who reign death on entire villages? Until you can approach the problem without deeming one side 'evil' and the other 'good' you're never going to get anywhere.

i dont see it either side under the romantic veil of "good" and "evil".
its just realism on what would be the "cheaper" answer. i dont think the israelis are "good", and because of that they should end up as "winnners".
i see it as "israel got so much muscle its wishful thinking to believe it will loose".
plus there is an ethical thing in my book that tells me "whoever start a war cant claim back looses derived from this war".


"Smackdown"? You mean the one where Israel was forced to withdraw without achieving any of it's stated goals? All they did was kill a bunch of people, mostly completely innocent, and shocker of all shockers, now the entire population of Lebanon hates them rather than just Hezbollah members. Way to go.

as long as they dont bug israel anymore, i´d say they achieved an objetive.
if that sets a precedent of how to olmert (and post--sharon israel) will deal with attacks... then that be achieving another objective too.

That's why he was forced to apologise for the whole thing and his government nearly collapsed.

i honestly think those words are empty.
he knew what he was doing, and it was pretty obvious what he wanted to do.
and, realpolitik-ally, i dont find fault on his motives.

[ALEXIS_DH]

That's a pretty flimsy assumption, but let's say for the sake of argument that it is true.

Olmert now has threatened Hezbollah, and they have temporarily backed down. Have you actually gained anything? Whether they rise up and kill umpteen people today or tomorrow, does it make much difference? Have any of the problems actually been fixed, or simply deferred? Will that deferring cause the next retaliation to be worse because bad feelings are stewing?

i think that you gotta make a first step before you walk a mile.
i think people gotta stop killing each other before they stop hating each other. you cant stop the hate when people get blown up everyday.
temporal peace (even if brought by sheer fear) might or might not evolve into definitive peace... but constant killings and bombs definately wont lead to definitive peace.

[Old Man G Funk]

i think that you gotta make a first step before you walk a mile.
i think people gotta stop killing each other before they stop hating each other. you cant stop the hate when people get blown up everyday.
temporal peace (even if brought by sheer fear) might or might not evolve into definitive peace... but constant killings and bombs definately wont lead to definitive peace.
Alexis, pointing a gun at someone's head and threatening to pull the trigger won't induce peace either.

Besides, you are willing to condemn the Palestinians for small scale attacks, but unwilling to condemn Israelis for bulldozing houses and people. Who has to stop the killing, only one side? How does that achieve peace?

[ALEXIS_DH]

Alexis, pointing a gun at someone's head and threatening to pull the trigger won't induce peace either.

sometimes it does. and other times, its actually the only way to convince.
a proof it does not always not lead to peace is the eastern front on wwii.

Besides, you are willing to condemn the Palestinians for small scale attacks, but unwilling to condemn Israelis for bulldozing houses and people. Who has to stop the killing, only one side? How does that achieve peace?

of couse both sides have to stop the killings.
but i´ve seen israel stop the violence before, with jordan, egypt (even at the cost of the oil rich sinai). i dont find objectable to bulldoze a house rigged with explosives and booby traps from where a rocket came from. as i dont have many doubts as to where does this "circle" of violence starts.

[Old Man G Funk]

sometimes it does. and other times, its actually the only way to convince.
a proof it does not always not lead to peace is the eastern front on wwii.
I categorically reject that. We pulled the trigger. We didn't just threaten with the gun, we pulled the trigger too. Unless you are willing to pull the trigger, all bets are off.
of couse both sides have to stop the killings.
but i´ve seen israel stop the violence before, with jordan, egypt (even at the cost of the oil rich sinai). i dont find objectable to bulldoze a house rigged with explosives and booby traps from where a rocket came from. as i dont have many doubts as to where does this "circle" of violence starts.
It's a "circle" because it has no start. You can't pin all the blame on the Palestinians. Even if a Palestinian started the whole thing 60 years ago by throwing the first rock, what do the current participants know about it? It's moot now. What matters is finding a peaceful solution. You have to take that first step to walk a mile, and if you want your mile to be all violence, then threats and retaliations is a great way to achieve that. If you want that mile to end in peace, you have to start acting like a responsible person who actually wants to achieve peace.

[Changleen]

the rule of law is pretty much the monopoly of violence by a government that tells you "if you dont behave, i´ll pwn you!".No it's not. :brow: Are you saying the only reason society doesn't descend into chaos is because people are afraid of the law? I totally disagree. Most people conduct their lives within the boundaries provided by laws because it's the sensible and constructive thing to do. Now when governments start acting outside those norms you get problems on a much larger scale, which are further amplified when bigger governments refuse to do anything about it.my extensiion is, the rule of "wars-you-start" should be "if you start a war and loose, accept that and stop pushing for a war you cant posibly win forever, otherwise dont bitch when you get bombed".
i´d think thats a fair and ethical behaviour for the loosing side that started a war.So might is always right and the end justify the means?



the preferrence is that you wouldnt even think about giving the threat a shot... not even if it means it has a chance at saving lives in the end.I don't like the threat because it is a) Immoral and b) DOESN'T HAVE A SNOWBALLS CHANCE IN HELL!
plus that part that thinks this will go on forever. it just wont.
thats pretty much how wars end, when one side cannot or isnt willing to fight anymore basically out of fear.And how is that ever going to happen in the ME? Alexis, the solution you are talking about is Genocide. Hope you're happy with that one.



i dont see it either side under the romantic veil of "good" and "evil".
its just realism on what would be the "cheaper" answer. i dont think the israelis are "good", and because of that they should end up as "winnners".
i see it as "israel got so much muscle its wishful thinking to believe it will loose".The Americans and Soviets have both lost in conflicts against much smaller, weaker enemies. Your point is invalid.
plus there is an ethical thing in my book that tells me "whoever start a war cant claim back looses derived from this war". So your definition of who started it is shared by everyone involved? No it's not. Therefore this is pointless line of argument.
as long as they dont bug israel anymore, i´d say they achieved an objetive.What about Israel bugging them? Since the end of the Israel vs. Lebanon, only one side has flown jets over the other's terrtory, sent soldiers across the border to and killed the other's citizens. Seriously, get a grip.
i honestly think those words are empty.
he knew what he was doing, and it was pretty obvious what he wanted to do.
and, realpolitik-ally, i dont find fault on his motives.He wanted to start a war so he could kill more of his enemies because he had failed to deal with them by talking? Yeah, what a hero. What an upstanding moral leader.

It is blatantly obvious that the only thing Olmert has achieved is to destabilise the region further and make future death more likely. He has devastated a previously growing economy and democracy. He has killed thousands of innocents. He is cvnt of the George Bush order.

[stinkydawg]

This is why I love America and what it stands for. You crackheads can come on here and bitch about all this that you want to. The only reason this is possible is due to the men and women risking their lives for you. How many of you cracks have actually spent time in the military and somewhat have a gist of what is going on? Probably 1 or 2...most of you just listen to CNN and other jackbag news reports. Keep on arguing and debating. I think its funny to see how stupidity has evolved over the years.

[kidwoo]

I think its funny to see how stupidy has evolved over the years.

I think its funny to see how stupidy has evolved over the years.

I think its funny to see how stupidy has evolved over the years.

I think its funny to see how stupidy has evolved over the years.


Oh dear god yes.

Teach me.

[N8]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v226/mtbnate/info-smilie.gif

[RenegadeRick]

This is why I love America and what it stands for. You crackheads can come on here and bitch about all this that you want to. The only reason this is possible is due to the men and women risking their lives for you...
I thought it was because Al Gore invented the intarweb for us. I did not know he risked his life to bring us this greatness.

And who else is risking their life for me? The troops? I would expect someone who could protect me might have to be a little closer than Iraq.

The ad hominem attacks are awesome. Name calling is what all the cool kids are doing today. I would love to stick around and compliment you on your awesome post, but I gotta run and meetup with my dealer as I am fresh out of rocks. :rant: Hope he has some nice ones for me.

[Changleen]

This is why I love America and what it stands for. You crackheads can come on here and bitch about all this that you want to. The only reason this is possible is due to the men and women risking their lives for you.BTW, This site is Kanukistani, so nothing to do with Bush's dumb overseas fantasies actually..

[ALEXIS_DH]

No it's not. :brow: Are you saying the only reason society doesn't descend into chaos is because people are afraid of the law? I totally disagree.

yes.
there is a correlation between the how effective the rule of law is and the welfare and order in a society.
in societies where there is virtually no rule of law, you end up with mad max-like scenarios.
of course, totalitarian rule of law does means mayhem... but no rule of law is an almost guarantee of no chance of no-chaos.


Most people conduct their lives within the boundaries provided by laws because it's the sensible and constructive thing to do. Now when governments start acting outside those norms you get problems on a much larger scale, which are further amplified when bigger governments refuse to do anything about it.

i disagree here. i think people dont commit crimes basically because they know it will have adverse effects on themselves, like pound-in-the-ass prison or the electric chair.
for those who dont need threats to refrain from crime.. they are just becomes redundant. but that doesnt mean they arent effective for a portion of a society for whom other things mean squat.

most people dont make problems. but it doesnt matter, you just need a few to break all hell loose.

So might is always right and the end justify the means?

in the real world, yes. you can yell, cry and wave your arms like a maniac.. but it wont really take you anywhere. how would you enforce it with anything but more might?? plus that doesnt mean the "might who is right" is always mistaken.
the end justifies the means? well, if the death of 10 random people prevents the death of 20 random people.. then that would mean the end justified a mean.


I don't like the threat because it is a) Immoral and b) DOESN'T HAVE A SNOWBALLS CHANCE IN HELL!

shortly after the lebanon war nasrallah said "he would have considered not attacking israel if he had known israel would react like it did" kinda disproves that.

And how is that ever going to happen in the ME? Alexis, the solution you are talking about is Genocide. Hope you're happy with that one.

it isnt genocide if you dont kill anybody. and you dont have to kill anybody if you are convincing.

The Americans and Soviets have both lost in conflicts against much smaller, weaker enemies. Your point is invalid.

nope. people win the lottery every week.. that doesnt mean you will win the lottery next week.

So your definition of who started it is shared by everyone involved? No it's not. Therefore this is pointless line of argument.

complicity. i´d say you can hardly say there is no complicity between the palestinian government and the militants.

What about Israel bugging them? Since the end of the Israel vs. Lebanon, only one side has flown jets over the other's terrtory, sent soldiers across the border to and killed the other's citizens.

since israel didnt start the latest mess, i dont see why they dont have the right to keep things in check, even if that means stepping over the rights of the offender.

Seriously, get a grip.
He wanted to start a war so he could kill more of his enemies because he had failed to deal with them by talking? Yeah, what a hero. What an upstanding moral leader.
It is blatantly obvious that the only thing Olmert has achieved is to destabilise the region further and make future death more likely. He has devastated a previously growing economy and democracy. He has killed thousands of innocents. He is cvnt of the George Bush order.

in my view, the guy started a war to show he wasnt going to take crap from hezbollah, and that israel wouldnt cave in to violence, and that the price to pay for violence will be high.
by doing so, there is a chance his actions will keep hezbollak from killing more israelis, and the IDF from engaging in more small and frequent low intensity but deadly ops. both things being the situation by default before this. at some point there is a chance the cost in lives could be lower than the situation by default. of course, that day is way closer from the israeli perspective.
i dont find taking that chance (for both sides) morally problematic.

[3D.]

I approve of torture, when arabs murder thousands of inocent Americans we must do what we must to make sure these things never happen again. We must make our enemies never even concieve the idea of attacking the U.S. again.
Wouldn’t implementing a “legal” torture procedure insure that we would be attacked in the near or far future? Never say never man. Did you play with little green army men up into high school or what? Your view is extremely shallow and completely unrealistic. I’ll bet you were usually on the winning side of the army men battles… weren’t you?

im tired of the rest of the world looking at us and laughing. We need to be the bad a$$'s on the block again, maybe we need to drop a nuke on N. Korea/Iran to show we mean business.

Yep Yep Yep You obviously haven’t payed much attention to the other “bad a$$’s” that once ruled the population over the past, oh say 6000 years. They all eventually fell due to there own overly exuberant acts of arrogance which led them to there self inflicted demise. Kinda like the way you think about yourself and the rest of this country. Keep thinking like that, it has a real positive ending for sure…

[3D.]

The only reason this is possible is due to the men and women risking their lives for you.

NO one is or will be attacking us for our personal beliefs or freewill. We will get attacked because of Wall Street and our inability to reason when setting a foot on foreign lands. I don’t see any belief system battles between the free countries like Canada, New Zealand, or Australia and other opposing nations??? Do you?

Our military is in place to push agendas on foreign soils… period. And I’m sorry that you can’t see that.

[Changleen]

yes.
there is a correlation between the how effective the rule of law is and the welfare and order in a society. There is a correlation.

However the correlation in the very worst cases is still an effect on a small or normally tiny percentage of the total population, yet you wish to tar the entire society with the same brush? Let's see where that gets us.

In the Congo where ridiculous crazy bananas status has been achieved, around 3 million people have died in a the last 5 yrs of conflict in a nation of 65ish million. This death toll also includes all the dead soldiers from Angola, Eritraea (sic?), Zimbabwe, Namibia, Uganda, Rwanda, and Burundi who have been effectively fighting over control of the Congo over this time, and who represent a good portion of the dead.

This is certainly not a thing that is in any way justified, nor should be in anyway ignored, but do you see what it means about the populations of even these 'most lawless' places?

80-90% of the people do not engage themselves in this chaotic lawlessness, yet you wish to 'solve' the problem by applying a treatment to the symptom rather than the problem, and worse than that to apply your 'cure' to the entire organism when only the foot is gangrenous.

All that happens as we have seen so many times in history is a large festering hatred and resentment is caused which rolls through the society of the criminalised, meaning the conflict drags on and on for years. What you are proposing is not a new idea, it is the typical reaction of the immature, desperate for an instant cure. It does not work. You must solve the root problem, or resort to genocide, which you seem to prefer.

i disagree here. i think people dont commit crimes basically because they know it will have adverse effects on themselves, like pound-in-the-ass prison or the electric chair.Hand up RM member who are only holding back from killing and raping their next door neighbours (especially that juicy little 8 year old blonde) because they are afraid of getting caught? :brow:
for those who dont need threats to refrain from crime.. they are just becomes redundant.So how did society start in the first place?
most people dont make problems. but it doesnt matter, you just need a few to break all hell loose.You just need a few to sort it out too. Yet the people who can make all the difference choose to let it roll on.

In the real world, yes. you can yell, cry and wave your arms like a maniac.. but it wont really take you anywhere. how would you enforce it with anything but more might??You seem to think rationality can only be enforced by might. Frankly you're just wrong. Most people I know have a brain.
i plus that doesnt mean the "might who is right" is always mistaken.
the end justifies the means? well, if the death of 10 random people prevents the death of 20 random people.. then that would mean the end justified a mean.Alexis, this is only true in a genuine 1/0, black white situation. However much you want it to be true, in the real world NO situation is like this. There is always a variety of possibilities and a variety of solutions. You cannot ever draw such a simplistic solution to a real world situation without excluding many possibilities. Only idiots would do this. "The end justifies the means" is a simplistic, morally repugnant, discredited child's 'solution' which will never pan out. It was the backbone of the actions of people like Hitler , Olmert and Bush. How much more evdence do you need that it will not work?

[Old Man G Funk]

Hand up RM member who are only holding back from killing and raping their next door neighbours (especially that juicy little 8 year old blonde) because they are afraid of getting caught? :brow:

Thank you for pointing that out. It's truly frightening to me when people tell me that the only thing keeping them from killing and raping others is that they are scared of getting caught and prosecuted by god or the government.

[ALEXIS_DH]

Thank you for pointing that out. It's truly frightening to me when people tell me that the only thing keeping them from killing and raping others is that they are scared of getting caught and prosecuted by god or the government.

i never said that.
i never included myself in either category, not i did say the only thing that kept me from a killing spree is the government.
remember for a minute where i´m. i bet you i can get away with lots of nasty stuff i just dont do because i dont find appealling and i dont enjoy hurting people. but thats not the point here.
the point here is thats just me, and it might be you, might be changleen... but thats not how everybody is.
to generalize that or to be surprised not everyone agres, thats just a naive view of the world. as if you guys have never seen anything outside a scottsdale CC or loughton.

this is the kinda of faulty reasoning i´ve been seeing frequently in the last posts. funnily, its variations of the "if you dont support the troops you are anti-american", or the "if you support gay marriage you must be gay" discourse.

[ALEXIS_DH]

There is a correlation.

However the correlation in the very worst cases is still an effect on a small or normally tiny percentage of the total population, yet you wish to tar the entire society with the same brush? Let's see where that gets us.

i dont think its about a normally tiny percentage of the total population that needs threats not to kill or steal. plus i think societies degenarate over time if you let them. so, even a tiny percentage today, will mean a majority tomorrow.
its a matter of incentives, rewards and punishment. thats among the only things i think are universal for human beings. yes, that pavlovian is my perseption of mankind.

In the Congo where ridiculous crazy bananas status has been achieved, around 3 million people have died in a the last 5 yrs of conflict in a nation of 65ish million. This death toll also includes all the dead soldiers from Angola, Eritraea (sic?), Zimbabwe, Namibia, Uganda, Rwanda, and Burundi who have been effectively fighting over control of the Congo over this time, and who represent a good portion of the dead.
This is certainly not a thing that is in any way justified, nor should be in anyway ignored, but do you see what it means about the populations of even these 'most lawless' places?

can mean so many things. its irrelevant.
not enough guns or ammo, people getting better at taking cover, light sleepers, good hearted assasins who saw the light, crappy child soldiers with crappier shooting skills.

80-90% of the people do not engage themselves in this chaotic lawlessness, yet you wish to 'solve' the problem by applying a treatment to the symptom rather than the problem, and worse than that to apply your 'cure' to the entire organism when only the foot is gangrenous.

first, is not the entire organism. you dont need to wipe out ALL subsaharan africa, nor ALL the middle east. that could indeed be considered a "solution", although a silly expensive one.

the idea would be to get a solution for as "cheap" as possible. and for that you only can choose from what you have available.
solutions are to be weighted against reality... not against some dreamy perfect solution where nobody dies, or where all jews convert to islam or where all palestinians turn into christianity.
all other "better" solutions have proven ineffective (IMO, a lot of them, fundamentally flawed by idealizing involved parties as rational, intelligent beings with self-preservation instincts).

and all this keeps going on, and people keep dying... while you break your head trying to figure out a solution (as if it was a matter of inventing something never seen before) that fares well against a "perfect solution" to satisfy your "moral standard".
albeit in the long run your "better and moral solution" (assuming a BIG IF you even find one) could prove more expensive.

All that happens as we have seen so many times in history is a large festering hatred and resentment is caused which rolls through the society of the criminalised, meaning the conflict drags on and on for years. What you are proposing is not a new idea, it is the typical reaction of the immature, desperate for an instant cure. It does not work. You must solve the root problem, or resort to genocide, which you seem to prefer.

like i said. you dont actually need to resort to genocide. you didnt need a genocide of americans or soviets to pre-empt a preemptive strike that never happened!.
as we talk people are dying already. thats pretty much a cost you can chalk up to our inaction.
some root problems cannot be cured. some root problems propagate faster than you can cure them.
if you have gangrene on your arm, and here is me and somebody else arguing on whether we should amputate or not.. while you are rotting to death for months, everyday closer to septisemy.. wouldnt, in the long run, be "more expensive" that to just chopping your arm on the first day?.

i get what you are saying here is "no need to amputate, we can cure this" (although you´ve been trying "cures" for 50 years) . but you see... as you say that, people is continuously dying.

now you can chalk up those deaths to the costs of your defense. your position isnt as "moral" or "cheap" (in terms of human life) as you´d think it is.


Hand up RM member who are only holding back from killing and raping their next door neighbours (especially that juicy little 8 year old blonde) because they are afraid of getting caught? :brow:
So how did society start in the first place?
You just need a few to sort it out too. Yet the people who can make all the difference choose to let it roll on.
You seem to think rationality can only be enforced by might. Frankly you're just wrong. Most people I know have a brain.
Alexis, this is only true in a genuine 1/0, black white situation.

its not the only one.
"most people you know have a brain". thats a problem right there. you seem to think because "most people YOU KNOW have a brain", then "most people MUST have a brain" must also hold true.
which isnt necesarilly true.

However much you want it to be true, in the real world NO situation is like this. There is always a variety of possibilities and a variety of solutions. You cannot ever draw such a simplistic solution to a real world situation without excluding many possibilities. Only idiots would do this. "The end justifies the means" is a simplistic, morally repugnant, discredited child's 'solution' which will never pan out. It was the backbone of the actions of people like Hitler , Olmert and Bush. How much more evdence do you need that it will not work?

wait.. did you ramble on "simplistic" thoughts, "morally repugnant" ideas, bad logic and faulty reasoning... to finally say "It was the backbone of the actions of people like Hitler , Olmert and Bush. How much more evdence do you need that it will not work?".

what other myriad REALISTIC solutions have worked??
its been 50 years, and from you train of thought, besides a few hundred thousand dead people... we arent that far away from point zero.
on the other front, with egypt and jordan, a massive threat of violence among other things have worked wonders (by relative standards).

[Old Man G Funk]

i never said that.
You practically did.

Chang asked you, "Are you saying the only reason society doesn't descend into chaos is because people are afraid of the law?"

You answered, "Yes."

Even if it is not all, it's scary to think that you believe that society is sufficiently cowed only by fear of laws to make it manageable. Are you not frightened of those that are only allowing you to live because they don't want to get caught? Are you asserting that the majority of the unwashed masses are in this group of murderers waiting to happen? Or, are you agreeing with Chang that it's a small percentage of the population?

Societies aren't born of some Machiavellian fear of the law. If that were the case, shouldn't we think that the most draconian laws would yield the most obedient people? Is that what we've seen throughout history? Even if it does lead to obedience, is that what you want? Does obedience to law = freedom?

[Old Man G Funk]

like i said. you dont actually need to resort to genocide. you didnt need a genocide of americans or soviets to pre-empt a preemptive strike that never happened!.
as we talk people are dying already. thats pretty much a cost you can chalk up to our inaction.
And what happens when your bluff gets called, as you know it will. I've asked you this many times, yet have not gotten an answer. If you can not answer this simple question, then your plan can not get off the ground.

[ALEXIS_DH]

You practically did.

Chang asked you, "Are you saying the only reason society doesn't descend into chaos is because people are afraid of the law?"

You answered, "Yes."

Even if it is not all, it's scary to think that you believe that society is sufficiently cowed only by fear of laws to make it manageable. Are you not frightened of those that are only allowing you to live because they don't want to get caught? Are you asserting that the majority of the unwashed masses are in this group of murderers waiting to happen? Or, are you agreeing with Chang that it's a small percentage of the population?

am not saying a majority of the people are murderers waiting to happen. but petty thieves, corrupt mofos, blatant a-holes?? yes.

and i dont fear the only reason they dont kill me its because of jail. actually, am kinda grateful am protected by that actually.
i trust more they´ll do whatever is the most beneficial to them, rather that to trust their word they wont kill me.

Societies aren't born of some Machiavellian fear of the law. If that were the case, shouldn't we think that the most draconian laws would yield the most obedient people? Is that what we've seen throughout history? Even if it does lead to obedience, is that what you want? Does obedience to law = freedom?

i´ve covered that i think by saying "totalitarian rule of law does mean mayhem" too.
i dont want that... like i said, rule of law is no guarantee of the wellbeing of a a society.... but no rule of law pretty much means no wellbeing can be achieved.

[ALEXIS_DH]

And what happens when your bluff gets called, as you know it will. I've asked you this many times, yet have not gotten an answer. If you can not answer this simple question, then your plan can not get off the ground.

i think i´ve covered this.
assuming you bluff gets called. (f gets called, then it sucked actually).

just do exactly what israel did, or the US is doing in iraq.. but cut the PR crap.
if you are going to do that anyways (emphasis on anyways, because dont fool ourselves, you know those arent the last times that is going to happen), at least get the most mileage out of it. :p
or be even more "humane" and call for evacuation before.

or you can do nothing, but some PR "in the name of mercy" handwashing,... and nobody died, the only thing hurt will be your pride...
it just isnt any worse than the situation by default. and given the rate of deaths. taking a shot wouldnt be as expensive as compared as the ongoing price

[Old Man G Funk]

i´ve covered that i think by saying "totalitarian rule of law does mean mayhem" too.
i dont want that... like i said, rule of law is no guarantee of the wellbeing of a a society.... but no rule of law pretty much means no wellbeing can be achieved.

But, if laws are to cow the populace into behaving as you have implied, then why do totalitarian systems not work?

[Old Man G Funk]

just do exactly what israel did, or the US is doing in iraq.. but cut the PR crap.
So, you want us to follow through on our threats? If we threaten to wipe out a town, then we do it. Great.:bonk:
or be even more "humane" and call for evacuation before.
Call for evacuation? Then your threat suxors, because the "bad" guys can get away during the evac. So, it doesn't work in this instance either.
or you can do nothing, but some PR "in the name of mercy" handwashing,... and nobody died, the only thing hurt will be your pride...
And the fact that people are p.o.ed that you have threatened to kill them and have used their lives as pawns. But, what do the unwashed masses care?
it just isnt any worse than the situation by default. and given the rate of deaths. taking a shot wouldnt be as expensive as compared as the ongoing price
Yes, because one more time I have to point out that you are asking us to use terror tactics. We fight the terrorists because we correctly condemn them for using terror tactics. When we turn around and do the exact same thing, it makes us no better than them, and we lose the moral upper hand. We become the terrorists, which means we would have to fight ourselves if we really want to stamp out terrorism.

Alexis, face it, your bluff won't work. It will be seen for what it is, empty rhetoric. If you do follow through on it, then you commit yourself to genocide. If you don't, then you simply make yourself into a terrorist. Some choice there, huh?

[RenegadeRick]

This is why I love America and what it stands for. You crackheads can come on here and bitch about all this that you want to. The only reason this is possible is due to the men and women risking their lives for you. How many of you cracks have actually spent time in the military and somewhat have a gist of what is going on? Probably 1 or 2...most of you just listen to CNN and other jackbag news reports. Keep on arguing and debating. I think its funny to see how stupidity has evolved over the years.

Hey I got a jackbag news report for ya. It is from CNN no less. It tells me what our troops are doing in Iraq. I think you will like it.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/15/iraq.slaying.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

[$tinkle]

Hey I got a jackbag news report for ya. It is from CNN no less. It tells me what our troops are doing in Iraq. I think you will like it.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/15/iraq.slaying.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstoriesthey could have gotten away with this if they weren't so stupid.

now they'll go from being stuck in iraq to stuck in a mil brig.

[RenegadeRick]

they could have gotten away with this if they weren't so stupid.

now they'll go from being stuck in iraq to stuck in a mil brig.

That is why you NEVER talk to the man when he is shaking you down. It doesn't matter what carp the man is trying to tell you they have on you. If they had the evidence, they wouldn't be trying to get you to confess.

Of course, they could always torture a confession out of you, heck, it is the American way.

[ElTORO]

What do you know another Bash Bush art.

I'm so sick of the bash Bush people. Come on!! I'm so over it already it dosn't DO ANYTHING to blame bush.

I don't blame him anymore, for ANYTHING!! I blame the AMERICAN PEOPLE!!!!! My country men!!! Everyone bashes the guy but when it finaly comes down to it EVERYONE VOTED FOR THE DUMBASS TWICE. "I want him to finsh the war, have him finsh what he started." That was the main reason for the re-election. Well not everyone MOST voted for the dumbass. Now a year after that everyone is this war is wrong Dam Bush Dam Bush!!!! He lied to me wha wha wha cry cry cry!!!

We put him in power!!! We had a vote even though it was F-ed up. But the majority won and the person WE thought we wanded runing & makeing desicions for our county is President. So you better deal with it for another 700 days or just get the F out!!

No more, NO BUSH!! I say no more dumbass hicks get to vote.

Rant over!!

[Reactor]

Will you think the same once they push the button on a nuke smuggled in a major U.S. city? and the thousands from 9/11 become millions, we must do what we have to now to make sure this day never ever becomes a reality. I work in the intel world and believe me their is some scary stuff out their you will never ever ever know about.

That would be tragically funny....if it weren't a tragedy.

As a former member of the intelligence world, I am ashamed that people like you are even employed as janitors. You make American intelligence an oxy-moron, and a joke to everyone outside the US. Your nebulous claims are meaningless, the threats you are refering have largely been around for many years, and successfully combated. The remainder aren't new, just our knowledge of them is.

Necon idiots have played right into the terrorists hands, giving them everything they want. Sure some of them were killed, but each one killed was replaced by a hundred. You've taken a country ruled by a brutal dictator who was no threat to America and turned it into a terrorist breading ground, right in the middle of the world's oil supply. And more, it's headed for civil war like a freight train filled with dynamite and a stuck throttle.

Interrogation tactics used by the US military, and some intelligence agencies have prompted outrage further inflaming the arab world and adding to the terrorists ranks.

[Reactor]

What do you know another Bash Bush art.

I'm so sick of the bash Bush people. Come on!! I'm so over it already it dosn't DO ANYTHING to blame bush.
~....~
I Everyone bashes the guy but when it finaly comes down to it EVERYONE VOTED FOR THE DUMBASS TWICE. "





Actually it was just over 50% of the country that voted for him, In both elections a handfull of votes tin the right state would have swung the election the other way.

[Dartman]

Unfortunately my daughter is going to live in it. I served in the military and I never thought I see the day when an american president condones torture, kidnapping, lying to congress, avoids due process, wiretapping, and is seen by an ally as being more dangerous than a certifiably insane foreign leader with nuclear weapons.


Good point. Didn't we swear to defend this country against all enemies...foreign and DOMESTIC!

[3D.]

Everyone bashes the guy but when it finaly comes down to it EVERYONE VOTED FOR THE DUMBASS TWICE.

We put him in power!!!

Did we really?

I say no more dumbass hicks get to vote.
Did you vote for him?

[ElTORO]

Did we really?


Did you vote for him?


What are you trying to say I'm a hick:banana: :banana:

and No.

[3D.]

Glad to hear it:biggrin:

[ALEXIS_DH]

So, you want us to follow through on our threats? If we threaten to wipe out a town, then we do it. Great.:bonk:

honestly, cutting the PR, would it be any worse than what is already standard procedure?
i dont think its moral to send your own to die, when you have other means to achieve pretty much the same thing. i dont think its moral that "morality" should require you to do token sacrifices in the quest for morality itself.

Call for evacuation? Then your threat suxors, because the "bad" guys can get away during the evac. So, it doesn't work in this instance either.
And the fact that people are p.o.ed that you have threatened to kill them and have used their lives as pawns. But, what do the unwashed masses care?

at this point, it doesnt matter much if they get away. what it matters more in the long run is if they stop attacking. the chance that happens, even out of fear, would be without a doubt, an improvement.
plus from an utilitarian pov, making that "adjustment" on current morality.. would counter a lot of the incentives of using terror tactics in the first place, making it much less attractive, and likely much less used.

Yes, because one more time I have to point out that you are asking us to use terror tactics. We fight the terrorists because we correctly condemn them for using terror tactics. When we turn around and do the exact same thing, it makes us no better than them, and we lose the moral upper hand. We become the terrorists, which means we would have to fight ourselves if we really want to stamp out terrorism.

i dont agree on that. i dont think you are "bad" or "inmoral" for using "terror tactics" in response to "terror tactics", in the same way you arent "bad" or "inmoral" for killing somebody who is about to kill you.
i think the status of "bad" or "inmoral" should only be granted to the first one who introduces that tactic into the playing field.

Alexis, face it, your bluff won't work. It will be seen for what it is, empty rhetoric. If you do follow through on it, then you commit yourself to genocide. If you don't, then you simply make yourself into a terrorist. Some choice there, huh?

if olmert today, thru a carefully worded statement, pretty much lays down that the past intervention (and worse) in lebanon will from now on standard operation anytime a rockets hits israel....
do you really think people will take it as nothing? or they will just laugh at the news?

[sshappy]

honestly, cutting the PR, would it be any worse than what is already standard procedure?
i dont think its moral to send your own to die, when you have other means to achieve pretty much the same thing. i dont think its moral that "morality" should require you to do token sacrifices in the quest for morality itself.

So you think it is morally more acceptable to kill innocent civilians rather than risk losing some of your own soldiers in a more targetted action?

at this point, it doesnt matter much if they get away. what it matters more in the long run is if they stop attacking. the chance that happens, even out of fear, would be without a doubt, an improvement.
plus from an utilitarian pov, making that "adjustment" on current morality.. would counter a lot of the incentives of using terror tactics in the first place, making it much less attractive, and likely much less used.

So far it has never worked, unless you can find an example?


i dont agree on that. i dont think you are "bad" or "inmoral" for using "terror tactics" in response to "terror tactics", in the same way you arent "bad" or "inmoral" for killing somebody who is about to kill you.
i think the status of "bad" or "inmoral" should only be granted to the first one who introduces that tactic into the playing field.


So morality is purely based on order? There are some problems with that..

How far back do you want to trace?
Is scale irrelevant?
How many times can you respond in kind and keep the moral high-ground?




if olmert today, thru a carefully worded statement, pretty much lays down that the past intervention (and worse) in lebanon will from now on standard operation anytime a rockets hits israel....
do you really think people will take it as nothing? or they will just laugh at the news?

Well, considering that Israel's past interventions in Lebanon have been little short of disastrous in terms of both achieving stated aims and in terms of how Israel is viewed throughout the world I think you will find him increasingly less likely to make such threats and increasingly less credible if he does.

Prior to the 1982 invasion of Lebanon Isreal was seen as having a robust and fair military morality. The debacle in Lebanon saw an end to that and the beginnings of awareness in the West that perhaps the Arabs and Palestinians did have some valid rights and greivances.

[ALEXIS_DH]

So you think it is morally more acceptable to kill innocent civilians rather than risk losing some of your own soldiers in a more targetted action?

i´d rather see it as total numbers VS total numbers.
dead people is dead people.

So far it has never worked, unless you can find an example?

the peace thru fear of total anhilation?. the cold war, wwii.

So morality is purely based on order? There are some problems with that..
How far back do you want to trace?
Is scale irrelevant?
How many times can you respond in kind and keep the moral high-ground?

how far back? how about 1 iteration. scale relevant? i´d say yes.
how many times you can respond and keep a moral high ground? what the infatuation with made-up moral high grounds? war, from any definition, means killing people.


Well, considering that Israel's past interventions in Lebanon have been little short of disastrous in terms of both achieving stated aims and in terms of how Israel is viewed throughout the world I think you will find him increasingly less likely to make such threats and increasingly less credible if he does.

i´d say that not limiting the wording to military intervention, but bomb dropping and stuff like that would make the willingness to execute threat more credible in the sense that it would be less costly to israel.

Prior to the 1982 invasion of Lebanon Isreal was seen as having a robust and fair military morality. The debacle in Lebanon saw an end to that and the beginnings of awareness in the West that perhaps the Arabs and Palestinians did have some valid rights and greivances.

i dont think you acquire rights out of sheer suffering, besides reparation (in the case you didnt started the mess).
you either have them, or not. and like i said before.. i dont think you can claim back rights, including but not limited to reparation, you voluntarily forfeited.

[Old Man G Funk]

What sshappy said.

honestly, cutting the PR, would it be any worse than what is already standard procedure?
i dont think its moral to send your own to die, when you have other means to achieve pretty much the same thing. i dont think its moral that "morality" should require you to do token sacrifices in the quest for morality itself.
I'll add this question. Is the life of an Israeli worth more than the life of a Palestinian?
at this point, it doesnt matter much if they get away. what it matters more in the long run is if they stop attacking. the chance that happens, even out of fear, would be without a doubt, an improvement.
plus from an utilitarian pov, making that "adjustment" on current morality.. would counter a lot of the incentives of using terror tactics in the first place, making it much less attractive, and likely much less used.
Ugh. Why can't you understand that unless you are willing to go ahead and actually commit genocide your bluff will be called and it will come to nothing? When the "bad" guys get away, they will not feel the sting of your threat, and therefore will not be afraid of it or cowed by it. But, if you don't evacuate, then you will have to mow down all the innocent civilians in your way. You can't win.
i dont agree on that. i dont think you are "bad" or "inmoral" for using "terror tactics" in response to "terror tactics", in the same way you arent "bad" or "inmoral" for killing somebody who is about to kill you.
That is a completely false analogy. Killing someone who is trying to kill you is self defense. Killing some family that has never done anything to you in retaliation for the acts of someone else (or as a pre-emptive measure) is straight up, unadulterated, cold-blooded murder.
i think the status of "bad" or "inmoral" should only be granted to the first one who introduces that tactic into the playing field.
So, if someone were to slap you, that would mean that you can do whatever you want to them for all of eternity so long as you think you are keeping that person from slapping you again?
if olmert today, thru a carefully worded statement, pretty much lays down that the past intervention (and worse) in lebanon will from now on standard operation anytime a rockets hits israel....
do you really think people will take it as nothing? or they will just laugh at the news?
What, because he hasn't already pissed off the Lebanese populace enough? They won't laugh at the news. They will be more convinced than ever that Israel is a rogue state that needs to be stopped or destroyed. Plus, if Olmert doesn't follow through the next time something happens, and there will be a next time, then his bluff is called and he is defeated. If he does follow through, then he isn't actually bluffing, is he?

[ALEXIS_DH]

What sshappy said.


I'll add this question. Is the life of an Israeli worth more than the life of a Palestinian?

is the opposite true?
now, from perspective, would you find it reasonably to ask an israeli to kill an israeli to save a palestinian? would it be reasonable to ask a palestinian to kill a palestinian to save an israeli??

Ugh. Why can't you understand that unless you are willing to go ahead and actually commit genocide your bluff will be called and it will come to nothing? When the "bad" guys get away, they will not feel the sting of your threat, and therefore will not be afraid of it or cowed by it. But, if you don't evacuate, then you will have to mow down all the innocent civilians in your way. You can't win.

that is assuming the bluff will be called.
for example, the bluff in the cold war was never called.

That is a completely false analogy. Killing someone who is trying to kill you is self defense. Killing some family that has never done anything to you in retaliation for the acts of someone else (or as a pre-emptive measure) is straight up, unadulterated, cold-blooded murder.

what if that in turns prevents your death??? if you point a gun at me and tell me "stab this person or i will kill you", be sure i´ll do it. for 2 reasons. first, it will give me a chance to survive. 2nd. at least one of us is already dead. if i dont stab you, the other guy will shoot me (for not stabbing you) and then will shoot the other guy (since its obvious he wants that guy dead).
it could actually minimize losses.

So, if someone were to slap you, that would mean that you can do whatever you want to them for all of eternity so long as you think you are keeping that person from slapping you again?

i´d slap them back once and tell them i´d slap them back again if they slap me again.

What, because he hasn't already pissed off the Lebanese populace enough? They won't laugh at the news. They will be more convinced than ever that Israel is a rogue state that needs to be stopped or destroyed. Plus, if Olmert doesn't follow through the next time something happens, and there will be a next time, then his bluff is called and he is defeated. If he does follow through, then he isn't actually bluffing, is he?

there might not be a next time if the threat is big enough, a la cold war.
or if there is a next time, going thru the usual actions sans PR could well satisfy the bluff. it would become a matter on how it was worded.

[Old Man G Funk]

is the opposite true?
now, from perspective, would you find it reasonably to ask an israeli to kill an israeli to save a palestinian? would it be reasonable to ask a palestinian to kill a palestinian to save an israeli??
Why is that a reasonable counter question?

What you are talking about is that instead of sending in one Israeli troop to be killed, you would rather kill a whole Palestinian family that has nothing to do with this, except that they were unlucky enough to be born Palestinian.
that is assuming the bluff will be called.
for example, the bluff in the cold war was never called.
And it will.

The difference with the cold war was that the arms were of equal scale and it was a mutual threat. You are talking about one-sided threats of completely unequal scale.
what if that in turns prevents your death???
How is the killing of some lowly peasant family going to prevent your death? C'mon.
i´d slap them back once and tell them i´d slap them back again if they slap me again.
Then you are not being consistent. If you were consistent, you would not only slap them back, but threaten to kill them and their family if they ever even look at you wrong.
there might not be a next time if the threat is big enough, a la cold war.
or if there is a next time, going thru the usual actions sans PR could well satisfy the bluff. it would become a matter on how it was worded.
Not if, but when.

[sshappy]

i´d rather see it as total numbers VS total numbers.
dead people is dead people.

Well you raised the question of morality. Are you now saying that you prefer the morality of minimizing total dead? In that case you really shouldn't be looking at an oppresive use of force as you will most certainly create more dead whilst you fail to end the conflict.


the peace thru fear of total anhilation?. the cold war, wwii.

There were many reasons that the cold war did not break out into a hot war in Europe but sadly elsewhere it did;
Korea, Vietnam, Angola, Afghanistan, Middle East.

Google how many wars occurred between 1945 and 1990, see if it's really any different since the end of the cold war.


As for WWII, you are clearly referring to the atomic bombs dropped on Japan, a nation already seeking terms for surrender. Using an example of a war that has raged for 6 years and is already over, all bar the shouting, proves nothing.



how far back? how about 1 iteration. scale relevant? i´d say yes.
how many times you can respond and keep a moral high ground? what the infatuation with made-up moral high grounds? war, from any definition, means killing people.


I mentioned morals because you did. You said "i think the status of "bad" or "inmoral" should only be granted to the first one who introduces that tactic into the playing field". So is moral once, or many times once it has been introduced? If North Korea detonate an atomic weapon in the US are they morally correct? Of course not, neither would Japan be if they did the same.

i´d say that not limiting the wording to military intervention, but bomb dropping and stuff like that would make the willingness to execute threat more credible in the sense that it would be less costly to israel.

But that is what they did recently and not for the first time. It didn't work then and it won't work next time. Much like 'Shock and Awe' hasn't cowed the Iraqi insurgency.



i dont think you acquire rights out of sheer suffering, besides reparation (in the case you didnt started the mess).
you either have them, or not. and like i said before.. i dont think you can claim back rights, including but not limited to reparation, you voluntarily forfeited.

Rights are surely inherent rather than acquired.

Reparations are morally repugnant when drawn from people other than those who actually committed the acts in question.