The next war

[MaGZ]

Because we were hoping on solving the problem on the cheap. It didn't work.



Sure, but the objection that we took the wrong strategy is different from the objection that we started it. We didn't.



What changed was our risk tolerance towards hostile terrorist-supporting rogue nations, and our willingness to use military force to do something about them. That changed because of 9/11. But again, the conflict predated 9/11, and we didn't start it.

It changed also because of the anthrax attacks which Israel launched.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Proof?

 

[Ziggurat]

You remind me of General Buck Turgidson in the film Dr. Strangelove.

You remind me of General Jack D. Ripper.

 

[mikeyx]

It changed also because of the anthrax attacks which Israel launched.

Isreal didnt launch them and you are dumb for thinking they did. I find your beliefs weak and not fit for survival. Therefore I am forced to declare you irrelevant.

 

[MaGZ]

Proof?

Israel had the means, motive, and opportunity to launch the anthrax attacks. It came from their bioweapons lab in Ness Ziona.




　

 

[Robrob]

Islamism was inspired by fascism.

And Oreos were inspired by Cheerios.

Seriously though, get a dictionary. Other than alliteration, there's no similarity. No matter how badly you want it to be.

Who was just liberated from the barbaric rule of Saddam Hussein by the USA when most of the world wanted him left in power.

So you are in favor of invading all barbaric dictatorships in the world? When are we going to North Korea?

I think Israel has everything on all major politicians in the US. Their agents here using the cover of the ADL and other like organizations have for years been compiling information on all American politicians. Blackmail is the only logical explanation for American foreign policy in the Middle East.

It changed also because of the anthrax attacks which Israel launched.

Assumption based on facts not in evidence.

Israel had the means, motive, and opportunity to launch the anthrax attacks. It came from their bioweapons lab in Ness Ziona.　

I especially like how you leap from an unfounded assumption (they must have done it) to a concrete allegation (it came from Ness Ziona).

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Israel had the means, motive, and opportunity to launch the anthrax attacks. It came from their bioweapons lab in Ness Ziona.




　

You know?

I'm starting to think you are either Jewish yourself or part Jewish.

You really have an unhealthy obsession with them.

 

[Cain]

You don't get it. It doesn't matter if we provide "further incentive" if they've already got more than enough incentive without us. And they do.

This is one of the arguments that is both plausible and misses the point, but this is an improvement considering you're something like oh-for-five. If a tyrants very fiefdom is under threat, he'll do anything possible to hang onto it. This could mean dismantling one's nuclear program. However, if one allows weapons inspectors into their country, has no real nuclear program, and still gets attacked, then the obvious recourse to other nations, what they learn from the Iraq debacle, is that they might as well pursue nuclear arms.

So... the actual track record doesn't matter. Funny how that works.

And let's just be clear that your "track record" is a coin that you flipped two times. Oh sure, it "always" lands on heads. Keep filling your head with such pretty lies.

Perfect? No, of course not. We don't live in a perfect world. But do I prefer that the fighting happens in Iraq rather than here? Hell yes. I make no apologies for that.

Which assumes that the fighting was even necessary. Again, you're peddling tired old nostrums; the quack who argues for bloodletting.

 

[Virus]

This is one of the arguments that is both plausible and misses the point, but this is an improvement considering you're something like oh-for-five. If a tyrants very fiefdom is under threat, he'll do anything possible to hang onto it. This could mean dismantling one's nuclear program. However, if one allows weapons inspectors into their country, has no real nuclear program, and still gets attacked, then the obvious recourse to other nations, what they learn from the Iraq debacle, is that they might as well pursue nuclear arms.

Life's tough for fascist rogue states.

 

[Ziggurat]

This is one of the arguments that is both plausible and misses the point, but this is an improvement considering you're something like oh-for-five. If a tyrants very fiefdom is under threat, he'll do anything possible to hang onto it. This could mean dismantling one's nuclear program. However, if one allows weapons inspectors into their country, has no real nuclear program, and still gets attacked, then the obvious recourse to other nations, what they learn from the Iraq debacle, is that they might as well pursue nuclear arms.

So by your own admission, they could either keep doing what they were doing anyways, or they might stop. And that's worse than them keeping doing what they were doing... how?

Talk about a logic fail. You've just conceded that my course of action provides at least a chance of success, whereas the alternatives... oh, that's right, you haven't provided any.

 

[bikerdruid]

Life's tough for fascist rogue states.

not for israel....our govts would do anythng for them.

 

[Virus]

not for israel....our govts would do anythng for them.

Where would you rather live? Israel or Iran? Which one has the death penalty? Which one proscribes the death penalty for homosexuality? Which one holds public stonings?

You won't answer.

 

[bikerdruid]

Where would you rather live? Israel or Iran? Which one has the death penalty? Which one proscribes the death penalty for homosexuality? Which one holds public stonings?

You won't answer.

irrelevant.
i'm not palestinian.

 

[ProBonoShill]

Where would you rather live? Israel or Iran? Which one has the death penalty? Which one proscribes the death penalty for homosexuality? Which one holds public stonings?

You won't answer.

irrelevant.
i'm not palestinian.

Virus, you should apply for the million dollars.

 

[Cain]

So by your own admission, they could either keep doing what they were doing anyways, or they might stop. And that's worse than them keeping doing what they were doing... how?

Talk about a logic fail. You've just conceded that my course of action provides at least a chance of success, whereas the alternatives... oh, that's right, you haven't provided any.

Logic fail, indeed. First, given your views on the Iraq boondoggle, I'm extremely skeptical of whatever you term a "success." Second, my claim from the beginning is that right-wing strategery has incentivized an Iranian policy contrary conservative goals (or at least publicly stated goals. If the United States invades/bombs regardless, then any remotely rationally self-interested individual can see the Iranian leadership should develop a nuke, since nuclear weapons are the best known deterrent. My other contention is that even if Iran does develop nuclear weapons, there's good reason to believe it's not the end of the world. It just means the United States loses its power to meddle in that region. But hey, according to (publicly stated) neoconservative fantasies, we're just there for own security and to spread democracy; black gold is an utterly trivial concern.

 

[Ziggurat]

My other contention is that even if Iran does develop nuclear weapons, there's good reason to believe it's not the end of the world.

I never suggested that it would be the end of the world. I said it would be bad. And nobody has given any reason that we should think otherwise.

It just means the United States loses its power to meddle in that region. But hey, according to (publicly stated) neoconservative fantasies, we're just there for own security and to spread democracy; black gold is an utterly trivial concern.

The stability of oil supplies is critical to the global economy. If oil prices skyrocket, it will hurt our economy, but it will lead to war in places like Africa. We won't actually suffer the most, the truly poor nations of the world will, because they don't have the margins or the wealth to absorb such shocks. Now, either you're indifferent to the violence that such events would lead to, or you just haven't actually thought about the subject in any depth. But your knee-jerk "screw the neocons" approach is neither intelligent nor moral.

 

[Virus]

Logic fail, indeed. First, given your views on the Iraq boondoggle, I'm extremely skeptical of whatever you term a "success." Second, my claim from the beginning is that right-wing strategery has incentivized an Iranian policy contrary conservative goals (or at least publicly stated goals. If the United States invades/bombs regardless, then any remotely rationally self-interested individual can see the Iranian leadership should develop a nuke, since nuclear weapons are the best known deterrent. My other contention is that even if Iran does develop nuclear weapons, there's good reason to believe it's not the end of the world. It just means the United States loses its power to meddle in that region. But hey, according to (publicly stated) neoconservative fantasies, we're just there for own security and to spread democracy; black gold is an utterly trivial concern.

So nuclear-armed exporter of Islamic terrorism. Good thing?

 

[Cain]

I never suggested that it would be the end of the world. I said it would be bad.

And I never said you did.

The stability of oil supplies is critical to the global economy. If oil prices skyrocket, it will hurt our economy, but it will lead to war in places like Africa. We won't actually suffer the most, the truly poor nations of the world will, because they don't have the margins or the wealth to absorb such shocks. Now, either you're indifferent to the violence that such events would lead to, or you just haven't actually thought about the subject in any depth. But your knee-jerk "screw the neocons" approach is neither intelligent nor moral.

I had you all wrong: you're a concerned global citizen whose heart bleeds for places like Africa. Clearly we need to be involved in that region not just for ourselves, but for less fortunate countries in the world. Thank goodness we're lucky enough to live in a world where our self-interests happen to align with poverty stricken countries. We're even more thankful people such as yourself have studied this subject in such -- what was your word -- depth. Surely the mind boggles.

Virus:

So nuclear-armed exporter of Islamic terrorism. Good thing?

Only if Noam Chomsky says so.

 

[Ziggurat]

I had you all wrong: you're a concerned global citizen whose heart bleeds for places like Africa. Clearly we need to be involved in that region not just for ourselves, but for less fortunate countries in the world. Thank goodness we're lucky enough to live in a world where our self-interests happen to align with poverty stricken countries. We're even more thankful people such as yourself have studied this subject in such -- what was your word -- depth. Surely the mind boggles.

So... you have nothing of any substance to respond with. No point, no argument, no evidence, no claim even. Just snark. Perhaps that's all there ever was.

 

[Virus]

Some things never change. Many people on the left didn't think the Soviet Union was a threat. Some even thought it was a superior alternative to our own societies. The left do not know bad guys when they see them. They are blinded by hatred for their own wealthy and free societies.