"Time passes, but they're always five to seven years from the bomb."

[IDB87]

So you believe that the US policies that contributed to the escalation into war with Middle-Eastern countries were a good idea, since they couldn't do anything about it?

How about we address exactly what you said,

I'm not referring to just 9/11. The subsequent war has cost the US mind-boggling amounts, both in dollars, reputation and human lives. And what have you gained in response? The enemies are still out there, and the liberated countries are still in chaos.

It's pretty straightforward, actually. You are making an argument against the United States (and her allies) by weighing the cost of the wars against the outcome of those conflicts. Which means you're dealing purely in aesthetics, since I doubt you care how much we spend, or how many of our soldiers are killed (if only for the sake of argument!).

If you think the cost is to high for the United States to retaliate against those who attacked us (and their hosts) and to remove Saddam (who was OUR responsibility) and allow the Iraqis to federate and be free of oppression, then you should just say that.

Those who find it hard to understand why most of the world does not want North Korea to have the bomb will find it hard to understand. If you think every despot or dictatorship should have access to these weapons, simply because we do then you should just say that. If you do not think anyone should have the bomb, then you should damn well be arguing against North Korea/Iran having it.

You are assigning to me a strawman position, because you don't care about what I actually think. It's a bit circular to say that is why you don't care.

How about you actually say what you think then?

 

[Mirrorglass]

How about we address exactly what you said,

How about we address it in context, so we might understand what I meant.

It's pretty straightforward, actually. You are making an argument against the United States (and her allies) by weighing the cost of the wars against the outcome of those conflicts. Which means you're dealing purely in aesthetics, since I doubt you care how much we spend, or how many of our soldiers are killed (if only for the sake of argument!).

No, that is not the argument I'm making. I spoke of US policy of acting indifferent to other nation's needs and values. He brushed this aside, remarking "what are they going to do about it?". I pointed out that they have done a lot of damage.

No, I'm not saying it would have been better to ignore the provocations against US and leave Iraq under Hussein's rule. I'm saying that until the situation escalated to open war, the US didn't consider it worth the effort to attempt to defuse the situation. There was no need to try and prevent attacks, since those attacks could be retaliated. But at what cost?

This is a simplification of the actual history. But dtugg's point, the one I responded to, represents a reasonably common way of thinking among Americans; namely, that it isn't worthwhile attempting to pursue peaceful solutions to problems, since the US has the resources to crush it's enemies utterly when the situation escalates - never mind that in the end, everybody is the worse off for it.

If you think the cost is to high for the United States to retaliate against those who attacked us (and their hosts) and to remove Saddam (who was OUR responsibility) and allow the Iraqis to federate and be free of oppression, then you should just say that.

I don't think that. I think it was foolish to let the situation get to that.

Those who find it hard to understand why most of the world does not want North Korea to have the bomb will find it hard to understand. If you think every despot or dictatorship should have access to these weapons, simply because we do then you should just say that.

I of course do not think that.

If you do not think anyone should have the bomb, then you should damn well be arguing against North Korea/Iran having it.

Oh, I never meant to imply they should have it. I just believe "because we can" is a poor justification for why the US should have nukes. I agree there are some decent justifications, as well, but this was the one that was presented.

How about you actually say what you think then?

I did.

And by the way, your insinuations about me not caring for the lives of foreign soldiers, somehow condoning the actions of North Korea and holding a few other contradictory and stupid opinions are quite uncalled for.

 

[dtugg]

That is a gross oversimplification of the history between the nations involved. And like I've said, it's not a matter of North Korea being a totalitarian state run by a madman. There are many such states. The only way North Korea is different is that they are a legitimate threat.

They fact of the matter is that they would be a threat to us if they were not a totalitarian state run by a madman and vice verca.

It is my position that it is extremely short-sighted to only think in terms of neutralizing threats, never ceasing to consider how those threats could be avoided in the first place. I think it's arrogance bordering on evil to treat people like they don't matter, and then attempt to crush them when they try to do something about it. And I think it's a policy that always comes back to bite you, something the US should have learned a long time ago.

You didn't answer the question. It matters naught if a threat could have been avoided once it was already there. Sure it is wise to avoid it if prudent even if that was always attempted, it doesn't mean it will turn out that way.

So in the course of ten years, how many thousands of Americans have died because "they" did something? How many civilians? Have there not been similar wars in the previous decades? Is the hubris of doing whatever you want without caring about others worth all those deaths, because most of the people you step on won't do anything about it? And do you truly believe it's alright to step on people, if you have the strength to kill them, should they rise against you?

Why don't you tell me who was stepped on causing terrorists to attack the US on 9/11 which then made it neccesary to respond. Sure some Muslims were pissed off but I hardly think their complaints were reasonable. No, I don't think the US should have considered the thoughts of some whackjobs when deciding if it should liberate Kuwait. Or if it should support a nation surrounded by people who want to destroy it. Or if it should station troops somewhere with the consent of the government. Hindsite tells us that we should have been more vigilant in protecting against whackjobs this may have pissed off, but no, I see no reason to consider what they think when deciding policy.

 

[JJM 777]

The US is not in violation of any treaties by possessing nuclear weapons.

Any criminal can use the same argument, they haven't broken any rule or treaty that they personally have signed.

The President of the US isn't a madman who wishes that one of his neighbors be wiped off the map.

The Presidents of US are men who already have wiped several countries off the map, and intend to continue doing so.

The US doesn't support terrorists who attack and wish to commit genocide against said neighbors.

The US is the biggest terrorist on the planet, and US has economically supported and still does support many terrorist groups.

 

[ZirconBlue]

I don't think that. I think it was foolish to let the situation get to that.

I'm curious what you think we should have been doing that would have prevented the war in Afghanistan? If it was "foolish to let the situation get to that," then, presumably, there must have been some easy solution we didn't avail ourselves of.

Oh, I never meant to imply they should have it. I just believe "because we can" is a poor justification for why the US should have nukes. I agree there are some decent justifications, as well, but this was the one that was presented.

How about "because we do, and it would be foolish to unilaterally disarm ourselves"? We

 

[Mirrorglass]

They fact of the matter is that they would be a threat to us if they were not a totalitarian state run by a madman and vice verca.

Well, since we don't have access to a parallel universe, we'll just have to disagree there.

You didn't answer the question.

It was meant to be implicit, but no. The position you described was not mine, while the position you quoted in this post was.

It matters naught if a threat could have been avoided once it was already there. Sure it is wise to avoid it if prudent even if that was always attempted, it doesn't mean it will turn out that way.

Then we are in agreement that there is reason to care about smaller nations, as they can do something about it. I'm not saying the US response was completely wrong once the situation got as bad as it did; I'm just saying that it would have been smart, not to mention decent, of the US to attempt to do something about the situation before 9/11.

Why don't you tell me who was stepped on causing terrorists to attack the US on 9/11 which then made it neccesary to respond. Sure some Muslims were pissed off but I hardly think their complaints were reasonable.

Certainly not. But just because their complaints were unreasonable, was it worth the attack to ignore them?

No, I don't think the US should have considered the thoughts of some whackjobs when deciding if it should liberate Kuwait. Or if it should support a nation surrounded by people who want to destroy it. Or if it should station troops somewhere with the consent of the government. Hindsite tells us that we should have been more vigilant in protecting against whackjobs this may have pissed off, but no, I see no reason to consider what they think when deciding policy.

Yes, that is my point. Despite the thousands of death, the billions of dollars and the mountains of criticism, you still don't see how avoiding the war could have been better. You say it was the right choice to ignore these wackjobs, even though it led to all that destruction. I'm not even questioning the attacks on Afganistan and Iraq; I'm questioning your reasoning, that says it was the right choice to contribute to the deaths of thousands of your own citizens, because the alternative would have been listening to crazy people. And that just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[dtugg]

Any criminal can use the same argument, they haven't broken any rule or treaty that they personally have signed.

Criminals are bound by the laws whether they agree or not. Nations are not bound by treaties they have not agreed to.

The Presidents of US are men who already have wiped several countries off the map, and intend to continue doing so.

Name one.

The US is the biggest terrorist on the planet, and US has economically supported and still does support many terrorist groups.

Name one terrorist group the US supports.

I wish you luck in your effort to force the US to give up its nuclear weapons.



Sent from my SPH-M900 using Tapatalk

 

[Mirrorglass]

I'm curious what you think we should have been doing that would have prevented the war in Afghanistan? If it was "foolish to let the situation get to that," then, presumably, there must have been some easy solution we didn't avail ourselves of.

Easy? Certainly not. But you can't really say that the war in Afganistan wasn't a result of decades of political chaos in the Middle East - something the US contributed to in no small amounts.

No, of course I cannot give you a clear and concise explanation of exactly what should have been done, and even if I could, hindsight is 20/20. But that is slightly beside the point. What I'm saying is it would have been worth the effort to attempt to prevent the feelings of animosity towards US taking such a hold of so many Middle Eastern people, even if that meant making concessions when it came to oil. The way I understood dtugg, he disagrees, saying that there is no need for Americans to care about the opinions of people who would wage war against her.

How about "because we do, and it would be foolish to unilaterally disarm ourselves"? We

Yes, that one is quite sensible. But like I said, it wasn't the argument made.

 

[dtugg]

Yes, that is my point. Despite the thousands of death, the billions of dollars and the mountains of criticism, you still don't see how avoiding the war could have been better. You say it was the right choice to ignore these wackjobs, even though it led to all that destruction. I'm not even questioning the attacks on Afganistan and Iraq; I'm questioning your reasoning, that says it was the right choice to contribute to the deaths of thousands of your own citizens, because the alternative would have been listening to crazy people. And that just doesn't make sense to me.

Sure it would have been better to avoid the war. That could have been done by taking terrorism more seriously. No, I don't think the US should have considered the thoughts of people like Osama bin Laden when making the decisions that led to the 9/11 attacks.