Bush & Saddam Should Stand Trial

[Mephisto]

I'll be the first to say I don't know the answer to those questions - they're questions for better philosophers and ethicists than I. But I fear events will one day force us to to answer "yes."

You're probably right, after all General George Custer was a hero, Buffalo Bill Cody was a great frontiersman, Korea and Vietnam weren't wars, Reagan conquered Communism and we're in Iraq to protect America . . .

There will always be people who remember the truth in spite of what history "decides."

 

[BPSCG]

You're probably right, after all General George Custer was a hero, Buffalo Bill Cody was a great frontiersman, Korea and Vietnam weren't wars, Reagan conquered Communism and we're in Iraq to protect America . . .

There will always be people who remember the truth in spite of what history "decides."

What Jocko said. What are you on?

 

[a_unique_person]

Yes indeed, in war people die. Why do you focus so on civilians? Soldiers are people too: each is a unique person in his own right.

What is this "targetted war' thing? It lies beyond my ken. I didn't use the term. Who does, and what does it mean?

"Precision weapons" (a fancy term for guided munitions) allow for less error in Circular Error of Probability (how close to the bullseye you actually hit) but nothing yet built by man has a 100% reliability rate, and no man yet conceived, and born of woman, has achieved perfection. War is an inherently human endeavor, with all that being human entails.

While "precision guided weapons" reduce the odds that non-combatants will get hit, they can't preclude that chance. The bomb can't tell people where to go to avoid getting hit, and sometimes, the wrong place gets chosen to get bombed, and sometimes, people are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

War gets people killed.

Next profundity?

DR

That is exactly what worries me. People no longer fear war.

 

[Mephisto]

What Jocko said. What are you on?

Are you accusing me of doing drugs too? I'm surprised the moderators let that kind of accusation go unnoticed, especially considering that you guys hurl insult after insult.

For your information, I'm at work, I've got three computers printing and I use this one to be the splinter in your ass as you and Jerko slide down the bannister of life. You're on after being on all day too, what's your excuse?

 

[a_unique_person]

Are you accusing me of doing drugs too? I'm surprised the moderators let that kind of accusation go unnoticed, especially considering that you guys hurl insult after insult.

For your information, I'm at work, I've got three computers printing and I use this one to be the splinter in your ass as you and Jerko slide down the bannister of life. You're on after being on all day too, what's your excuse?

When they have nothing reasonable or logical to say, it's their standard fallback. Hurl insults. I just hurl them back.

 

[Mephisto]

When they have nothing reasonable or logical to say, it's their standard fallback. Hurl insults. I just hurl them back.

Yeah, and they've been doing that a lot lately! Is it because defending their beliefs is getting more difficult or because they are becoming less adept? Anyway, I'll bet they're funny in person when they're angry.

 

[BPSCG]

Are you accusing me of doing drugs too?

No, I'm asking.

I explained why "imposing democracy" on a country can have a terrible cost, and wondered if the manifest benefits of democracy make the cost of that imposition worthwhile.

You replied with a completely irrelevant random neural firing:

after all General George Custer was a hero, Buffalo Bill Cody was a great frontiersman, Korea and Vietnam weren't wars, Reagan conquered Communism and we're in Iraq to protect America . . .

There will always be people who remember the truth in spite of what history "decides."

That was your third completely irrelevant post in about 24 hours. This is evidence of some sort of cognitive dissonance, to swipe Jocko's apt term. Whether it's caused by drugs, alcohol, lack of sleep, inattention from too much pressure at work, inability to multitask effectively on three computers, or some underlying physiological deficit (you had suggested manic depression), I suggest you tend to the matter.

 

[Mephisto]

No, I'm asking.

So, then it's perfectly feasible that you're NOT insulting me, and you're actually concerned for my well-being. BTW - what kind of hallucinogens are YOU taking?

I explained why "imposing democracy" on a country can have a terrible cost, and wondered if the manifest benefits of democracy make the cost of that imposition worthwhile.

That's a good one, YOU explaining why imposing democracy on a country can have a terrible cost is like George Bush telling the Iraqi people how lucky they are we invaded.

You replied with a completely irrelevant random neural firing:That was your third completely irrelevant post in about 24 hours. This is evidence of some sort of cognitive dissonance, to swipe Jocko's apt term. Whether it's caused by drugs, alcohol, lack of sleep, inattention from too much pressure at work, inability to multitask effectively on three computers, or some underlying physiological deficit (you had suggested manic depression), I suggest you tend to the matter.

My assertions are not irrelevant or random - maybe just not immediately apparent to you, probably because it's difficult to see past your own political poop. Your assertion that . . .

I'll be the first to say I don't know the answer to those questions - they're questions for better philosophers and ethicists than I. But I fear events will one day force us to to answer "yes."

. . . suggest that "history will tell" (where have we heard THAT before), and I simply agreed with you. However, I also indicated that I thought history wasn't always accurate and had more to do with WHO writes that history than what actually happened.

Just to help you out a bit.

Custer was a great hero

"In late 1875, Sioux and Cheyenne Indians defiantly left their reservations, outraged over the continued intrusions of whites into their sacred lands in the Black Hills. They gathered in Montana with the great warrior Sitting Bull to fight for their lands. The following spring, two victories over the US Cavalry emboldened them to fight on in the summer of 1876. To force the large Indian army back to the reservations, the Army dispatched three columns to attack in coordinated fashion, one of which contained Lt. Colonel George Custer and the Seventh Cavalry. Spotting the Sioux village about fifteen miles away along the Rosebud River on June 25, Custer also found a nearby group of about forty warriors. Ignoring orders to wait, he decided to attack before they could alert the main party. He did not realize that the number of warriors in the village numbered three times his strength."

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/pfcuster.htm

He wasn't a great hero, he was another imperialistic buffoon waging war on the terrorists of his time.
_____________

Buffalo Bill was a great frontiersman

"The railroads allowed easy access to the buffalo by anyone who wanted to shoot and they did, right from the trains. Backed up by an unlimited supply of new accurate breech-loading rifles and plenty of ammunition, a wild rush of White buffalo hunters came to the buffalo country. In 1867 "Buffalo Bill" Cody entered into a contract with the Kansas Pacific Railway, then in course of construction through western Kansas, at a monthly salary of $500, to deliver all the buffalo meat that would be required by the army of laborers engaged in building the road. In eighteen months he killed 4,280 buffalos. "Buffalo Bill" was only one of thousands of hunters."

http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Atrium/4832/buffalo4.html

So, our decimation of the wildlife and our disrespect for the environment started out early.
____________

Korea & Vietnam weren't wars

"The United States has launched all of its major armed conflicts since World War II as police actions. In these events, Congress had not made a formal declaration of war, yet the President, as the commander-in-chief, has claimed authority to send in the armed forces when he deemed necessary. Nonetheless, limited Congressional control has been asserted, in terms of funding appropriations. The Korean War and the Vietnam War, strictly speaking, were not declared wars but police actions."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_action

Guess I should drop my membership to the V.F.W. and join the V.F.P.A. (Veterans of Foreign Police Actions).
___________

Reagan Conquered Communism

"As the fortieth President of the United States, Ronald Wilson Reagan renewed America’s confidence and made the world a better place. Known as the “Great Communicator,” his unwavering vision of democracy and consummate leadership skills are credited with bringing the Cold War to an end—and guiding the U.S. to new heights of national pride, technological achievement and economic prosperity."

http://www.foxstore.com/detail.html?item=1347&u=1104400212&gclid=CPG9yIewh4cCFQ9OWAod7Sw9bQ

He accomplished and instituted great change in this country - rabid conservatism, the war on drugs and he almost got to call catsup a vegetable serving in school lunches.

"But what really ticked off Ingraham was my response to Blitzer's remark that Reagan was "a conservative Republican who really altered the political landscape in this country to this very day." Indeed he did, I said, adding, "In fact, the gap between the wealthy and the poor increased during his eight years, and has continued on that trend. He had draconian cuts in food stamps and school lunch programs. Remember, catsup as a vegetable and Medicaid [cuts]?"

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=1496
__________

As for my last assertion, that our soldiers in Iraq are protecting us here at home - I guess history will forget how British airport security and law enforcement uncovered a plot by terrorists to (once again) use jet liners as weapons, and there will undoubtedly be more in the future, thus obliterating the notion that, "We're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here."

But of course, history will tell.

 

[a_unique_person]

You're right about the incompetant predictions, and the corruption in the entire area combined with our previous ties to Saddam always made me feel that this war was sometimes more about destroying evidence . . .

It amazes me that anyone can even suggest "staying the course," when it's been one failure after another.

That's what I've been wondering too. He's basically saying he wants to keep on with making one disaster after another, because to stop doing so would be to admit he made a mistake. By 'he' I mean Cheney, I think, he's the brains behind it all.

 

[Jocko]

When they have nothing reasonable or logical to say, it's their standard fallback. Hurl insults. I just hurl them back.

And then cry like a little girl with a scraped knee when they find their way into a sig line for their charming, if impotent, effects.

Hurl away, AUP. Pretend your next post is a katyusha rocket and I'm an Israeli teen oppressing you by walking down a street somewhere just within range.

 

[Jocko]

For your information, I'm at work, I've got three computers printing and I use this one to be the splinter in your ass as you and Jerko slide down the bannister of life. You're on after being on all day too, what's your excuse?

Perhaps you should concentrate one one computer and spend less time imagining how you're going to get into people's asses? Those are two excellent ways to begin making sense.

 

[a_unique_person]

And then cry like a little girl with a scraped knee when they find their way into a sig line for their charming, if impotent, effects.

Hurl away, AUP. Pretend your next post is a katyusha rocket and I'm an Israeli teen oppressing you by walking down a street somewhere just within range.

You are just a troll, this forum only has meaning for you when you can attack someone.

 

[Mephisto]

And then cry like a little girl with a scraped knee when they find their way into a sig line for their charming, if impotent, effects.

That's pretty interesting considering you quote AUP in your sig line. Does that mean you're impotent?

Speaking of crying like a little girl . . .

 

[Mephisto]

Perhaps you should concentrate one one computer and spend less time imagining how you're going to get into people's asses? Those are two excellent ways to begin making sense.

Maybe you should concentrate on providing some sources and some evidence of your assertions that I hate Israel and the Jewish people, or are you just a run-of-the-mill conservative - all talk and no action?

As for your two excellent ways to begin making sense - you're certainly one to talk - you don't make anymore sense than a monkey flinging poo between the bars of his cage. (Apologies to TragicMonkey and mummymonkey)

 

[Jocko]

That's pretty interesting considering you quote AUP in your sig line. Does that mean you're impotent?

Speaking of crying like a little girl . . .

Huh? If you can't even cogently impugn a guy's masculinity, I really think it's time you took a break, buddy. If you want to take another swipe at insulting me, by all means go nuts. I can appreciate a good shot to the chops. But don't waste my time with this nonsense.

Oh, and "poo" isn't really the kind of word grown-ups use. Consider investing in a thesaurus.

 

[Jocko]

You are just a troll, this forum only has meaning for you when you can attack someone.

Poomph, right in the desert. Come on, a_u_p, you've got about 10 minutes before the IDF zeros your position. Got time for one more shot?

 

[Mephisto]

Oh, and "poo" isn't really the kind of word grown-ups use. Consider investing in a thesaurus.

Well, I thought about calling you a

Edited by tim: 

Wrong. Refrain from this sort of comment, whether there be filters or not.

but it probably wouldn't get through the filters. Anyway, you've got a limited amount of imagination - think of the worst insult you can, then imagine me applying it to you.

Edited by tim: 

See above.

.

 

[BPSCG]

That's a good one, YOU explaining why imposing democracy on a country can have a terrible cost is like George Bush telling the Iraqi people how lucky they are we invaded.

Fine, point out my apparent hypocrisy. But answer the question I asked. Was "imposing democracy" on Germany and Japan worth the cost? Yes or no? If "yes," then what do you consider an acceptable cost-to-benefit tradeoff? And show how that yardstick demonstrates that while the tradeoff was worthwhile in the case of Japan and Germany, it is not worthwhile in the case of Iraq, nor in the case of the larger Islamic middle east.

Custer was a great hero

"In late 1875, Sioux and Cheyenne Indians defiantly left their reservations, outraged over the continued intrusions of whites into their sacred lands in the Black Hills. They gathered in Montana with the great warrior Sitting Bull to fight for their lands. The following spring, two victories over the US Cavalry emboldened them to fight on in the summer of 1876. To force the large Indian army back to the reservations, the Army dispatched three columns to attack in coordinated fashion, one of which contained Lt. Colonel George Custer and the Seventh Cavalry. Spotting the Sioux village about fifteen miles away along the Rosebud River on June 25, Custer also found a nearby group of about forty warriors. Ignoring orders to wait, he decided to attack before they could alert the main party. He did not realize that the number of warriors in the village numbered three times his strength."

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/pfcuster.htm

He wasn't a great hero, he was another imperialistic buffoon waging war on the terrorists of his time.

Mephisto, just because you elaborate at length on an irrelevancy doesn't make it any less irrelevant. I'm trying to find out whether killing a lot of people and destroying a lot of cities is a price worth paying if you get democracy by doing it. You're answering by trying to explain why Custer wasn't a hero.

 

[Mephisto]

Fine, point out my apparent hypocrisy. But answer the question I asked. Was "imposing democracy" on Germany and Japan worth the cost? Yes or no? If "yes," then what do you consider an acceptable cost-to-benefit tradeoff?

Yes, imposing democracy on Germany and Japan was worth the cost, but you're comparing apples to oranges. Japan and Germany were involved in imperialistic actions against major portions of the world, they were incarcerating millions of Jews for the purpose of genocide and responsible for the death of millions of people,

Iraq wasn't involved in a declared war on anyone, nor did they have the capabilities to attack anyone. A far cry from Japanese or German actions preceding WWII.

What made the occupation of Japan and Germany an acceptable "cost-to-benefit" tradeoff was the fact that it was a WORLD WAR and we were coaxed into the war with Japan's surprise attack.

And show how that yardstick demonstrates that while the tradeoff was worthwhile in the case of Japan and Germany, it is not worthwhile in the case of Iraq, nor in the case of the larger Islamic middle east.

That's an easy one:

First, the United States was in no danger from Iraq. They couldn't attack us because they didn't have the weapons nor an intercontinental delivery system.

Secondly, the American people were mislead by the Bush administration that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Of course, this is only the first excuse we used for our invasion. Other reasons were; WMD, to liberate the Iraqi people, to capture Saddam, to bring Saddam to trial, to wait until the Iraqi people formulated a Constitution, to wait until the Iraqi people held their first elections, to wait until the Iraqi people held their second election and so on and on and on. Eventually, after ten years of violent occupation, I imagine our excuses will be along the lines of, "to ensure that the Iraqi children have the Nickleodean TV network so Iraqi children can learn about Sponge Bob.

I'm trying to find out whether killing a lot of people and destroying a lot of cities is a price worth paying if you get democracy by doing it.

What a stupid question, but what can anyone expect from a neo-con who believes that the end deserves the means.

P.S. Maybe it's not working because we're not killing enough people?

 

[FreeChile]

You missed the point, from top to bottom. I wasn't saying you beat the insurgents into submission. I was saying that if the Iraq invasion had wrought death and destruction comparable to what Germany and Japan had suffered in WW II, or the Confederacy had suffered in the American Civil War, there would have been no Iraqi insurrection to begin with. When you have demonstrated that you are ready, willing, and able to utterly destroy your enemy, and his only way to keep you from doing that is to stop resisting you, he will stop resisting you rather than face destruction.

You did say “unless and until you destroy …” I simply pointed out that that was not the only way to stop an insurgency. But even with the explanation you are offering now, it is still possible for a group to choose destruction over submission or surrender: the “give me liberty or give me death” type.

People here talk about "imposing democracy," as if that's something bad, but that is exactly what we did to Germany and Japan, countries that, before WW II, were no more democratic than Iraq.

The ugly question is, is it worth the terrible cost? Would the world today be better off if the Nazis and the Japanese had extended their savagery no farther than their own borders, and not dragged the rest of the world into a war? Is having peaceful, prosperous, and democratic Germany and Japan today worth the hundreds of millions of lives it cost?

Why do you limit your comparisons to Germany and Japan? Why not Colombia, Haiti, or the Dominican Republic, or the Koreas, or Cuba, or Iran, or Vietnam? There are nearly 100 years of History available to you.

Would having a peaceful, prosperous, democratic Iraq today be worth the destruction that might be necessary to bring it about?

This is a hypothetical question. As hypothetical as asking if Saddam Hussein would have been overthrown had the United States not supported him and you would probably find more evidence suggesting that hypothesis. Another equally hypothetical question would be if Iraq would become peaceful, prosperous, and democratic if the United States ceased the invasion. Why don’t you prefer these hypotheses, instead?

Also, what evidence do you have that a peaceful, prosperous, and democratic Iraq was or is the goal of the invasion? Do you accept this simply because your leaders in Washington say it? And even, if that were the goal, what gives you the confidence that the goal is attainable and that the US is competent to do it?

Would having a peaceful, prosperous, democratic Islamic middle east tomorrow be worth the millions of deaths that might be necessary to bring it about?

I'll be the first to say I don't know the answer to those questions - they're questions for better philosophers and ethicists than I. But I fear events will one day force us to answer "yes."

So you want a peaceful world tomorrow and you hope you will have it through war! So the whole thing is simply a hopeful theory for you, isn’t it, like religion where you are saved in your next life. The uncertainty you express here clearly shows it. Even Einstein, one of those “better philosophers”, cried like a little girl and regretted having advised Roosevelt to build the atom bomb.

It is interesting that in spite of your self-expressed uncertainty and fear, you cling to the myth that you will save the Middle East and the world through war. Just look at the way you, Mephisto, Jocko, and a_unique_person carry on. I wonder what all of you would do to each other if given weapons and left in a room by yourselves. Is that a reflection of the world you want to impose on others?