|
In my opinion the choice is win or lose? Others have varying opinions on what "we should win the war?" means, all worth something to me. that's why I opened up this thread. If I didn't feel others opinions were valid then why open up such a discussion. The way I was reared "Other opinions are valid."
Yes, others have varying opinions. Some have no problems with losing. That is fine for them.
That does not change whether one should at least make a reasonable effort to inform their opinion.
If you have never seen a movie, your opinion as to the quality of the movie is suspect.
If you base your opinion of a current event on a set of historical "facts" that are wildly inaccurate, then your opinion of that event is equally suspect.
And, again, despite the opinion some hold, dismissing something as "just" someone else's opinion is not a rebuttal.
|
|
Man, you really are something else. Fortunately, I live in a country where all men are created equal (at least in theory). That is one privilege that even the current administration cannot take away. Since we are created equal; all our opinions carry equal weight. So MY opinion is as valid as yours, even if you are too pompous to acknowledge it. But that is the last I have to say on the topic; you can return to your own fantasy realm where only YOUR opinion counts. This IS a D&D-based board so fantasy is encouraged!
Enjoy your self-delusion Sammy!
And thanks for the smiles, Sebastian. I love me some good sarcasm. :)
Created equal does not mean the same.
Or are you a neurosurgeon, partical physicist, race care driver, rock star, and comic book hero, all at the same time?I know that some poor fools like yourself must desperately cling to the delusion that your ignorant babbling is in fact as relevant as the considered opinions of those educated and informed on a topic, but the simple reality is that they are not. Indeed, such is the height of fantasy role-playing, although I am surprised you manage in the real world when suffering such delusions. Remember, you really can not remove your own appendix, or defend yourself in court.
|
|
So then you do take issue with it because he was the one who said it. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose--I just wanted to make sure you were attacking the speaker and not the truth of his statement.
The statement is not true.
War is no more inherently evil than any other form of self defense.There's also no need to do so. If you want to do an in-depth analysis of the costs of leaving Iraq, knock yourself out--and may no logic get in your way. You've already declared your own opinion to be more valuable than mine, so reasonable discourse is no longer possible here. When your high horse gets a little shorter, perhaps we can talk.
Ooh, nice attempt at a fiat declaration that I must be wrong. Apparently you are guilty of the same arrogance you accuse me of.
Maybe when you get off your cross you can discuss the concept rationally.Nope. My point is the same. We can't afford to stay in Iraq. Wishing we had the resources to do so doesn't fill the war chest.
Except you have nothing but your own fiat declaration that we do not have those resources.
Nice try, but I do not accept you as an authority on the topic.Nice straw man. Unfortunately, it doesn't stand up. I feel our environmental problems are reversable without destroying the economy.
Then your claim that we can not win without bankrupting the country is just as much a strawman, and just as indefensible.
You can not have it both ways. If you want every opinion to be valid, you must accept that even when it is turned on you. That you are unwilling to merely proves your hypocrisy.Seriously, Samuel: Antagonizing people who hold a different opinion from your own is not going to win you any debates--it's just going to cause others to dismiss your opinions as quickly as you dismiss theirs. My understanding is that we're all gamers here, sharing our views out of a sense of community--like friends around a gaming table. That's the sort of discourse that would be a positive thing to see here, at any rate, and I think most folks here have contributed in that light.
I don't speak for anyone else, but I'm not trying...
When my views are dismissed so cavalierly, then I dismiss the views of others just as casually. I can understand that you object that I do it so directly, but I have little use for the puerile false humility that passes as civility among some.
Most folks have not contributed in that light. Most folks have contributed utter nonsense, like the garbage about forcibly relocating an entire nation, or historical inaccuracies, like not realizing the US had troops in Viet Nam in 1950. When challenged on that, they have either failed to reply, or made deliberate misrepresentations to deflect from having to answer. That is not discourse. Of course, that pales to the sheer obnoxiousness of thinking "That's just your opinion!" is somehow the same as an actual response. I am still waiting for anyone to actually justify that as a legitimate tool of discourse, and not just a way to pretend you are being civil while telling someone to shut up. I will not be holding my breath waiting for it.|
|
When my views are dismissed so cavalierly, then I dismiss the views of others just as casually.
I, for one, didn't dismiss your views at all--at least not until you directed this tremendously condescending attitude towards me. Even now, as you continue to flame me and other community members, I can tell that you'd probably have an interesting and worthwhile point of view on the subject--but until you're willing to demonstrate a modicum of respect for your peers and recognize that their views are also worthwhile, there's no point in further dialogue.
Sorry, Erik! I'll get back to work now. :)
War is no more inherently evil than any other form of self defense.
... my bold. ROFL!
I finally got the joke! You are such a card, Sam.
KA
In my opinion the choice is win or lose? Others have varying opinions on what "we should win the war?" means, all worth something to me. that's why I opened up this thread. If I didn't feel others opinions were valid then why open up such a discussion. The way I was reared "Other opinions are valid."Yes, others have varying opinions. Some have no problems with losing. That is fine for them.
That does not change whether one should at least make a reasonable effort to inform their opinion.
If you have never seen a movie, your opinion as to the quality of the movie is suspect.
If you base your opinion of a current event on a set of historical "facts" that are wildly inaccurate, then your opinion of that event is equally suspect.
And, again, despite the opinion some hold, dismissing something as "just" someone else's opinion is not a rebuttal.
Sam your a dick.
Sam your a dick.
Concise. Accurate. Truthful.
I was thinking something like "moron" or "idiot" but "dick", that really does it for me.
Ok before I insulted Sam. I had come on the computer to apoligize to NPC Dave and all the rest for, well being a dick. Honest.
I rather be a nice person, but when I feel someone is pushing me (Dare I say threatened, silly I know), I want to push back. SO some of the things NPC Dave wrote; hurt. So as is my habit, I struck back. But really I apologize.
I did learn something (the best reason for a debate), probably because I value the opinion of others.
|
The Problem with that Sam is the reality that the USA is not prepared to burn down all their villages and temples, rape their women, and sell their children into Slavery so they can die in the Arena.
If you can Stand up and declare you will burn their cities, and rape their women, and let their children die in sporting stadium for the entertainment of a fickle populace, and win an election on that...you will be ready to rule the world.
The problem with that is that it is quite possible to win a war without such extreme methods.
War is not a choice between ubi solitudinem caiunt pacem appellant and quagmire.
It is a choice of political will and political expedience.
If you choose political expedience, you will inevitably lose.
If you stick with political will, victory is quite attainable.In the case of Iraq, political expedience has been chosen to date. Only someone as venal as Captain Renauld could be shocked, shocked I say, to discover the policy has failed miserably to produce a stable government.
Yes, I thought the "Iraq will be a Bastion of Democracy in the Islamic World" Speech was a good laugh as well.
We all know that the only way to shut down Terrorists in Iraq is to round up all the men and remove them from the cites. Once they are all in Labour camps diging irrigation canals, building roads, dams, ect, they can educate their children in good, safe schools. Remove private vehicle transport infavour of a public bus network, build hospitals. Fun stuff like that.
In the end the USA may have to simply carry out its promise to rebuild Iraq. They secured an airfield in the far west, they need to build a city there and relocate all the women and children to it.
A Perfect, technologically advanced city for Women and Children only.
I don't think yellowdingo is saying that the US has done that in Iraq.
I interpret his words to mean that the US must resort to measures that are so far beyond the pale that the US will never engage in them.
And yes, to stop the terrorists you must kill them, a great solution!
Where are they? It's not like they all have t-shirts that read terrorist.
Sam your a dick.Concise. Accurate. Truthful.
I was thinking something like "moron" or "idiot" but "dick", that really does it for me.
Thank you, sirs, for saying what I've wanted to say for some time, now.
PS I think 'troll' works also. But other than his blissful arrogance, I think he's probably harmless. He's certainly not relevant.
A flaming troll, perhaps? Or merely one that should not be fed?
|
|
OK, I said it was not worth it, however...
The truth is, history is not an exact science, as maths...
For example, Napoleon may be seen as a despot.
That is partially true.
On the other hand, he brought to France an organization and rules that are still applied, so he may be seen as a good ruler, despite the fact that many french died under his rule.And despite that, Napoleon was not removed by a popular uprising of liberal democrats.
So once again, you are desperately short of an actual point.
1st - he was not a dictator, but a DESPOT, as I wrote.
We still use its organization of France (départements & régions), his civil code, some laws...In France, he was not seen as a dictator.
But I may say that he was a despot because he didn't share power and tried to subdue most of Europe.
You should read first what I wrote before saying I am wrong.
Which does not change that they were not removed by popular uprisings of liberal democrats as you assured us all dictators inevitably are, nor does it change the fate of the millions of their victims.It is not how history is, it is how you analyse it and draw your conclusions. And we do not analyze things the same way.
As for Staline or Mao, the rulers that came after them did change things, and both of them have been at least partially desacralized in their own country.
Yep, but the cult over those persons is down, even in their own country.
I guess that even in Russia, in a few years, Staline will be remembered as :- a mass-murderer...
- who saved USSR from the nazis (I know, thanks to Molotov or Joukov).
And not only dictatorship kill many many innocent civilians, directly or by doing nothing...
Remember what happened in Vietnam.
Remember "collateral damage" in Cisjordania or Gaza.
Remember UN troops not interfering to stop the slaughter in Szebrenica.
Or the french troops in Rwanda.
So, what you see as green, I may see it as yellow, and a third person as purple.And what you see as moral I see as moral.
Oh, well, on the contrary for sure.
Not on everything, I mean...Moral is different from person to person.
My friends see me as someone honest, fair, and with a good morality.
But it doesn't mean that they totally agree on what I think and say.
That is what I was saying : neither of us is totally right or wrong.And what I am saying is: you are totally wrong.
Your history is wrong.
Your analysis is wrong.
Your moral judgements are wrong.
That is the speech in dictatorship.
Staline, Mao, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Pinochet, Franco and many more used to think just like you do...As I said, not every opinion is of equal worth.But if you think everything you wrote is absolutely and ultimately right, I guess other readers (than me) would not think so.
And I don't share your opinions.
And that is supposed to mean... ?
Is your opinion more worthy than mine ?If the answer is yes...
then again, that is the speech in dictatorships.
If I say I hate the color green and you say you like it, is my opinion not as important as yours ?
If I write that I do not think that the USA should have gone in Irak and you do think they were right, neither of us has a better opinion than the other : they are different.
I must wonder though, if you do not believe everything you wrote is right, why exactly did you write it? Just to dissent?
I know it is a popular internet absurdity to believe in this concept that people would not believe in what they write, but the concept is easily exposed as the ludicrous conceit that it is.Yes, I do believe what I wrote. I will not change my mind just because you do not you do not agree.
Where did I ask you to change your mind ?
I wrote I don't share your opinion.That is why I wrote it would be useless to go on this...
And I do believe in what I wrote.
Profiling and military intelligence achieve good results when not shackled by media attachments and misinterpretation and flawed application of US and international military law. Within and without of the military, these errors produce flawed data, or cause valid data to be unusable.
Easy and quick? No, but until someone thinks up a better way to handle nontraditional combatants, fighting and killing them is the only way to make the countries they exist in, and the world as a whole, secure.
Teresa Jakobsen,
US Army, Ret.
It's clear that terrorists cannot be reasoned with, and will not tolerate co-existence. Therefore, killing them is, sadly, the only way to deal with them. As a patriotic American, however, I'm unable to agree that giving one person--be he the president or not--the power to detain any foreign person (terrorist or not) as an "enemy combatant" at his sole discretion, to hold such person without evidence nor trial, and to possibly torture that person (depending on the definition used)-- can really make the world secure. Indeed, the hard lesson we learned in Europe and elsewhere in the 1970s was that no place can be made 100% secure, and that to trade our democracy for a dictatorship in pursuit of that security is as grave a crime as trying to coddle the terrorists. Kill those who are caught committing or conspiring to commit terrorist actions? Yes. I see no other option. Give one person, however well-meaning, the ability to label anyone he chooses a "terrorist," despite lack of evidence? That I cannot in good conscience agree with.
|
[I didn't claim it would be easy, it isn't. Profiling and military intelligence achieve good results when not shackled by media attachments and misinterpretation and flawed application of US and international military law. Within and without of the military, these errors produce flawed data, or cause valid data to be unusable.
Teresa Jakobsen,
US Army, Ret.
This is potentially interesting. I assume that this is some sort of roundabout way to say that if the US armed forces hadn't insisted on embedding journalists, then said armed forces could have engaged in all kinds of 'enhanced interrogation measures' without having to worry about those stupid international treaties?
|
|
I, for one, didn't dismiss your views at all--at least not until you directed this tremendously condescending attitude towards me. Even now, as you continue to flame me and other community members, I can tell that you'd probably have an interesting and worthwhile point of view on the subject--but until you're willing to demonstrate a modicum of respect for your peers and recognize that their views are also worthwhile, there's no point in further dialogue.
Sorry, Erik! I'll get back to work now. :)
I, for one, always respect my peer, and accept when they present their views.
It takes more to be someone's peer than just posting to the same message board with them. Examples follow.|
|
Ok before I insulted Sam. I had come on the computer to apoligize to NPC Dave and all the rest for, well being a dick. Honest.
I rather be a nice person, but when I feel someone is pushing me (Dare I say threatened, silly I know), I want to push back. SO some of the things NPC Dave wrote; hurt. So as is my habit, I struck back. But really I apologize.
I did learn something (the best reason for a debate), probably because I value the opinion of others.
No, you would rather be a foul mouthed fool, content to empower ignorance and bigotry.
|
|
1st - he was not a dictator, but a DESPOT, as I wrote.
We still use its organization of France (départements & régions), his civil code, some laws...
In France, he was not seen as a dictator.
But I may say that he was a despot because he didn't share power and tried to subdue most of Europe.
You should read first what I wrote before saying I am wrong.
You should try not to parse words, particularly synonyms.
Despot or dictator, perception does not change their actions. If someone called Hussein "merely" a despot, would that change what he had done? He did not share power tried to subdue his neighbors after all.Yep, but the cult over those persons is down, even in their own country.
I guess that even in Russia, in a few years, Staline will be remembered as :
- a mass-murderer...
- who saved USSR from the nazis (I know, thanks to Molotov or Joukov).
You do no have to wait a few years, there is already a pro-Stalin cult in Russia.
And not only dictatorship kill many many innocent civilians, directly or by doing nothing...
Remember what happened in Vietnam.
Remember "collateral damage" in Cisjordania or Gaza.
Remember UN troops not interfering to stop the slaughter in Szebrenica.
Or the french troops in Rwanda.
There is a difference between a deliberate policy of murdering people by starvation, shooting, or use of poison gas than there is to people dying in a war zone.
An inability to recognize that demonstrates a very distinct bias.Oh, well, on the contrary for sure.
Not on everything, I mean...
Moral is different from person to person.
My friends see me as someone honest, fair, and with a good morality.
But it doesn't mean that they totally agree on what I think and say.
There is a difference in scale between thinking a genocidal dictator is evil and thinking going to war to stop that genocidal dictator is evil. That is a complete inversion of morality.
Just as:That is the speech in dictatorship.
Staline, Mao, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Pinochet, Franco and many more used to think just like you do...
No. The misrepresentation of history and conflating of direct mass murder with sitting aside that you do is what those peoples promoted.
They relied on well meaning outsiders like yourself to justify their actions.And that is supposed to mean... ?
Is your opinion more worthy than mine ?
If the answer is yes...
then again, that is the speech in dictatorships.
If I say I hate the color green and you say you like it, is my opinion not as important as yours ?
If I write that I do not think that the USA should have gone in Irak and you do think they were right, neither of us has a better opinion than the other : they are different.
Again, you are the one advocating the message of dictators.
If message of Pol Pot to jump cambodia to communism in step, no matter how many had to die, is an opinion of equal worth and validity to any other, then on what basis can you condemn his actions? His view is just as legitimate as yours.If you say you hate the color green and you can see only black and white, your opinion is rather less important than someone who can see in color. I am not sure how you can imagine otherwise.
If you write that you do not think the US should have gone into Iraq simply because you oppose US hegemony that is fine. If you say so because you do not like that Al Gore declared war like that, then your opinion is rather less worthwhile for an obvious reason.
Where did I ask you to change your mind ?
I wrote I don't share your opinion.
That is why I wrote it would be useless to go on this...And I do believe in what I wrote.
You questioned if I believed if everything I wrote was correct.
Why would I not?You said you do not share my opinions.
Obviously. Does that mean I should not express my own? Of what relevance is the statement? So everyone can be sure you disagree? I am quite sure that is obvious.
A peculiar statement overall.
|
|
We all know that the only way to shut down Terrorists in Iraq is to round up all the men and remove them from the cites. Once they are all in Labour camps diging irrigation canals, building roads, dams, ect, they can educate their children in good, safe schools. Remove private vehicle transport infavour of a public bus network, build hospitals. Fun stuff like that.
Interesting that you would advocate techniques that have been used to build "socialist paradises" in the past.
That may be your preferred way of doing things. You should not project like that.|
|
QFT
PS I think 'troll' works also. But other than his blissful arrogance, I think he's probably harmless. He's certainly not relevant.
Significantly more relevant than an insispid twit like yourself.
And significantly better educated.
Can you even find Iraq on a map?
Isn't it somewhere south of New Zealand? BTW, it's insipid, not insispid. Way to show your 'better education' there Sammy! It's amazing that you can deduce my education level from just a few posts. You need to relax now; we're sorry that we pushed your buttons so badly. Oh, who am I kidding? It's fun to see a well-educated person reduced to a reactionary 'tard. Aren't you enjoying the fact that I am sinking to your level? Trust me friend; I am at least as intelligent as you are if not more so. But I feel no need to prove it to the likes of you. As I said before; you simply aren't worth any more of my time. Psst, that's one definition of irrelevant.
Thanks for the entertaining discourse.
To everyone else: I apologize for being partially responsible for this thread devolving into what it has. I will do my best to refrain from further flame-fanning. Guys like Sam just make it so tempting to do so. I now return you to your regularly-scheduled posting.
|
|
No, what I am saying is, intelligence is an ugly business. The tactics that need to be used for it to be effective can be disturbing to people, like the media and and general public, who do not understand why they are used.
The matter of military law being misunderstood, both by active soldiers and operatives and observers civilian and military alike, is relevant because most of these laws were written in the aftermath of World Wars 1 & 2 and expect the parties involved to be traditional forces. Applying these laws to nontraditional forces, such as those found in Iraq, is bound to create disagreements.
Teresa Jakobsen,
US Army, Ret.
There is a fairly extensive literature out there on torture, and it generally concludes that it does not really work, primarily because the victims will say or agree to anything to make it stop. Thus, it historical usage has never really been for extracting information (unless one counts "yes, I really am a witch" as 'divulging information'), but rather as a form of punishment. The "ticking bomb" example all the torture advocates seem to love so much is particularly puzzling to me - if I know that a bomb is going off very soon, wouldn't that give me added incentive to resist? And, conversely, if time is not of the essence, why won't normal interrogation methods work?
I'd also be interested in hearing how military law is currently being misinterpreted; if, as you say, "military law being misunderstood, both by active soldiers and operatives and observers civilian and military alike", shouldn't that indicate that the general consensus is the "misunderstood" part, and furthermore, that it can thus be reasonably be inferred that this interpretation is the correct one? Who has the correct interpretation, and what is it?
Finally, I disagree with your opinion that traditional treaties of war do not apply to nontraditional enemies. As I see them, these rules were not codified to create the image of certain states being "nice" - they were written to make surrender a conceivable option for a deafeated enemy, thus cutting down on casualties and making combat mediation more viable. After all, why would one surrender if that means death and/or torture? If both parties subscribe to these rules, conflict becomes far less lethal, which works to the benefit of both sides. Obviously, certain nontraditional forces do not subscribe to these rules, and that is almost certainly the reason why US forces do not contemplate surrendering to insurgents, as they know what will happen to them if they do. Still, the US forces have everything to win by sticking to those rules, because, without them, nobody will surrender to them either, which again hinders both the gathering of info and the establishment of any sort of goodwill.
|
|
Isn't it somewhere south of New Zealand?
Yes it is.
Moron.BTW, it's insipid, not insispid. Way to show your 'better education' there Sammy!
Wow, so you can find a typo.
Good work Shmucky.To everyone else: I apologize for being partially responsible for this thread devolving into what it has. I will do my best to refrain from further flame-fanning. Guys like Sam just make it so tempting to do so. I now return you to your regularly-scheduled posting.
Liar.
You just get off flaming your betters, and being smacked back into place by them.Rather pathetic, but typical of poorly educated and socialized dweebs like yourself.
To everyone else: I apologize for being partially responsible for this thread devolving into what it has. I will do my best to refrain from further flame-fanning. Guys like Sam just make it so tempting to do so. I now return you to your regularly-scheduled posting.
In all fairness I started this thread.
LET IT BURN! LET IT BURN!
Apology accepted!
|
|
No, what I am saying is, intelligence is an ugly business. The tactics that need to be used for it to be effective can be disturbing to people, like the media and and general public, who do not understand why they are used.
That being said, there was much ado about the tactics being used at Abu Ghraib, the breakdown in the chain of command there and elsewhere, and just generally soldiers NOT trained for intelligence gathering being instructed by people outside of their chain of command to do a job they were not trained for. What truly irritates me about it is the tendancy to find a low ranking soldier who has been thrust into a situation he or she was not trained to handle doing something untoward and hang them out to dry. The blame should have been focused higher up as well. This irks me to no end.
It's true, it is an ugly business. So ugly that a tendancy to not dot all the i's, cross all the t's, and do things by the book can lead to nothing but extreme horror.
