RE: The War in Iraq Costs...

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: The War in Iraq Costs...

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: The War in Iraq Costs...

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: The War in Iraq Costs... - 3/16/2006 4:52:54 PM

Chaingang

Posts: 1727
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline

I got your humor section right here, Baby!

...

"The Final Word Is Hooray!"
Remembering the Iraq War's Pollyanna pundits

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2842&printer_friendly=1

...

My personal fav:

"The war winds down, politics heats up.... Picture perfect. Part Spider-Man, part Tom Cruise, part Ronald Reagan. The president seizes the moment on an aircraft carrier in the Pacific."
(PBS's Gwen Ifill, 5/2/03, on George W. Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech)

Now that's just ghastly idiocy...

http://www.nndb.com/people/065/000044930/

"How can I say this so I don't turn off every man in Washington? I don't know why I'm not married. I just know I will be, so I don't sweat it." - Gwen Ifill

And that's just hilarious...

< Message edited by Chaingang -- 3/16/2006 4:53:44 PM >

_____________________________

"Everything flows, nothing stands still." (Πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει) - Heraclitus

(in reply to Chaingang)

Post #: 41

RE: The War in Iraq Costs... - 3/18/2006 12:30:47 PM

DelightMachine

Posts: 652
Joined: 1/21/2006
Status: offline

quote:

The War in Iraq Costs:

... less than the consequences of getting a major American city destroyed by weapons of mass destruction.

Saddam's WMD scientists + terrorists (Al Qaeda and others) + a bit more time = WMD terrorism in the U.S.

Don't tell me that Saddam didn't have WMDs. He had 'em in the past and would have had them again if he'd been kept in power.

Don't tell me that the Iraqi government didn't have ties to terrorists. It's been proven that they did.

Don't tell me that something would have stopped him from giving WMDs to terrorists who wanted to destroy U.S. cities. He didn't have moral scruples about anything, and he was willing to take risks.

John Warren's upset at people who don't check out information that they pass on? I'm sick of people who comment about politics before thinking it through. I think those people are dangerous in the world we live in now. That probably includes most of you.

_____________________________

I'd rather be in
Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg

(in reply to Chaingang)

Post #: 42

RE: The War in Iraq Costs... - 3/18/2006 1:01:12 PM

JohnWarren

Posts: 3807
Joined: 3/18/2005
From: Delray Beach, FL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DelightMachine

quote:

The War in Iraq Costs:

... less than the consequences of getting a major American city destroyed by weapons of mass destruction.

Saddam's WMD scientists + terrorists (Al Qaeda and others) + a bit more time = WMD terrorism in the U.S.

Don't tell me that Saddam didn't have WMDs. He had 'em in the past and would have had them again if he'd been kept in power.

Don't tell me that the Iraqi government didn't have ties to terrorists. It's been proven that they did.

Don't tell me that something would have stopped him from giving WMDs to terrorists who wanted to destroy U.S. cities. He didn't have moral scruples about anything, and he was willing to take risks.

John Warren's upset at people who don't check out information that they pass on? I'm sick of people who comment about politics before thinking it through. I think those people are dangerous in the world we live in now. That probably includes most of you.

Well, it's pretty clear you have a point of view. Others have another.

Actually, the world is a lot safer now than it has been in the last 60 or 70 years. Of course, that's history and people don't like to study "old stuff." Are the Islamics the threat that the old Soviet Empire was... Nazi Germany... wartime Japan? Those guys were ready and willing to erase us. Not blow up a few buildings, kill a few people... erase us.

By the way, if we were so worried about Iraq, how about Pakistan and Korea, both military dictatorships with nukes.

The main debate is "have we made the world safer by swatting one hornet's nest while there are others all over the place." Fine, we bring democracy to Iraq... then they vote to attack us. Just look at what's happening in Palestine. Democracy, yah!

The biggest problem is that George Bush and his handlers think there are simple answers to complex problems. So far, he's been wrong 100 percent of the time.

_____________________________

www.lovingdominant.org

(in reply to DelightMachine)

Post #: 43

RE: The War in Iraq Costs... - 3/18/2006 1:30:18 PM

DelightMachine

Posts: 652
Joined: 1/21/2006
Status: offline

quote:

Are the Islamics the threat that the old Soviet Empire was... Nazi Germany... wartime Japan? Those guys were ready and willing to erase us. Not blow up a few buildings, kill a few people... erase us.

Yes, they're an equivalent threat: Now, before the terrorists have WMDs, they're less of a threat. If they get the WMDs, they'll be more of a threat because they so obviously are "ready and willing to erase us" -- even more than the Soviets were, probably more than the Nazis or Imperialist Japan. Those other threatening powers were more interested in enslaving the survivors. I doubt the Islamists would care one way or the other.

quote:

By the way, if we were so worried about Iraq, how about Pakistan and Korea, both military dictatorships with nukes.

Yes, we should be worried about them, too. I agree. If you're saying, "Why didn't we invade them, too?" Well, that's harder to do AFTER they get the nukes, isn't it? The Pakistanis have been co-operating with us to a degree, and we don't need to make them an outright enemy, even if many of them are Islamists. Iran is the main danger now. There isn't much we can do about Korea right now. Let's hope the regime falls and a better one takes its place. And let's hope the Korean nukes don't get stolen in the meantime. Let's also hope they don't get given away or sold to some terrorist group.

Yeah, it's a damn scary world we're living in. That's why I think most of you are dangerous.

quote:

The main debate is "have we made the world safer by swatting one hornet's nest while there are others all over the place."

A bit safer, yes. My first post explains how. But we need to destroy some hornet's nests elsewhere, and the hornets too. We're not going to appease ourselves out of this or get anywhere by avoiding confrontation with a state like Iran. Watch the ongoing debate about Iran. They are utterly radical and totally committed to getting WMDs and they consort with terrorists too. I don't know what we'll do about them, but I'm in favor of no limits to our confronting them -- however much force is necessary. Better Iranians die than Americans, and if you think I'm being paranoid, just read the newspapers.

quote:

Fine, we bring democracy to Iraq... then they vote to attack us. Just look at what's happening in Palestine. Democracy, yah!

And your alternative is having despots friendly with the U.S.? That was our policy with the Shah and with others (including, at some points, Saddam). That got us ... 9/11. The democracy strategy is long-term, not short-term. No one who advocates it thinks that the winners in a free election will always be what we want. That's true with all democracies, including our own. Over the long haul, democracies tend to be moderate. Best to start that process as soon as possible.

quote:

The biggest problem is that George Bush and his handlers think there are simple answers to complex problems. So far, he's been wrong 100 percent of the time.

Well, it's pretty clear you have a point of view. Others have another.

_____________________________

I'd rather be in
Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg

(in reply to JohnWarren)

Post #: 44

RE: The War in Iraq Costs... - 3/18/2006 2:28:24 PM

Level

Posts: 25145
Joined: 3/3/2006
Status: offline

quote:

Merc wrote:

BTW - Economically speaking, citizens of the US CAN have zero taxes under a flat tax program. If corporations doing business in the US were taxes on gross sales as little as 12%, and ALL imports from ALL sources taxes at the same rate, there would be no need of a personal tax. Before you start lobbying for such an economic model consider the ramifications. There are many. For instance virtually all charities would instantly go away. With no tax incentive the majority of individuals and corporations would no longer budget for charity

Maybe the giant charities, but I tend to think there'd be many smaller "mom and pop" ones around; would it be enough to do what needed to be done? That I do not know.

quote:

Merc wrote:

Finally, is the conflict in the middle east fake? NO there is real ethic based hatred on both sides. Is it engineered? ABSOLUTELY! Engineered on both sides since Israel was formed in 1947. A Jewish state didn't have to be located precisely there number one. But more to the point, ever wonder why there are "Palestinians"? There is a shit load of unused reclaimable land in much better shape than what they are fighting. The Muslim countries of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, and the aforementioned UAE all could support a area the size being fought for by the Palestinians. Why aren't/weren't the Palestinians relocated there with their Muslim "brothers"?

Yep. The Saudi's, etc, don't want Palestinians in there country because they'd be a drain on their resources, IE the ruling elite's pocket books, which they don't even want their own countrymen to get a whiff of.

quote:

Merc wrote:
PPS - Within his personal reply, Chaingang brings up the point that this post indicates that in hindsight I feel the US invasion of Iraq was a mistake and I should admit it. I don't think that's the case. Being there now is a mistake as currently deployed. Going in and taking out Saddam was not a mistake. Do I contradict myself or make use of semantics? If found guilty I won't argue. But when Chaingang compared my vacillation to Kerry's I had to let him know that I will not stand for further insult!

LOL, don't blame you there.

Level

(in reply to JohnWarren)

Post #: 45

RE: The War in Iraq Costs... - 3/18/2006 2:36:39 PM

JohnWarren

Posts: 3807
Joined: 3/18/2005
From: Delray Beach, FL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DelightMachine

Yes, they're an equivalent threat: Now, before the terrorists have WMDs, they're less of a threat. If they get the WMDs, they'll be more of a threat because they so obviously are "ready and willing to erase us" -- even more than the Soviets were, probably more than the Nazis or Imperialist Japan. Those other threatening powers were more interested in enslaving the survivors. I doubt the Islamists would care one way or the other.

Have you ever seen the Order of Battle of the Japanese Fleet? It wasn't a couple of Bogjammers operating out of some fishing village. Jack McGeorge has described the Soviet anthrax reactors in Uzbekistan to me. They were stories tall and produced tons of anthrax.

That's the problem with peace. In a quiet room, a dropped book sounds like an explosion. We've lived in a virtual boiler room for over half a century.

If Bush really wanted peace instead of more personal power, he could declare that we are eliminating all WMDs from our arsenal. That would put pressure on everyone else to join in an absolute ban instead of saying "we have them; you can't." After all, they are old tech, the last gasps of the industrial age. We needed nukes because good old Curt LeMay's guys couldn't guarantee laying an egg within miles of a target so it made good military sense to erase a city to get a command post or a factory complex. Things have changed. This is the information age and five pounds of tetril can be put in just in the right place obviating the need to remove the surrounding city and its inhabitants.

I used to be a confirmed Tellerite, but times have changed and it's time for us to recognize that. As long as one nation state can demand that it is its right to have WMDs, there is no moral pressure for anyone else to give up that right.

We once had the moral high ground. Out of a lack of courage we gave that up. It's time to take it back.

< Message edited by JohnWarren -- 3/18/2006 2:37:09 PM >

_____________________________

www.lovingdominant.org

(in reply to DelightMachine)

Post #: 46

RE: The War in Iraq Costs... - 3/18/2006 2:53:43 PM

Level

Posts: 25145
Joined: 3/3/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelGA

lets stop the war...we can't afford it

vote a woman in, they deserve the right to be president and would probably do a better job...

i now know why women won't be president...they're tired of picking up after men and this is a BIG mess the men left this country in.

Saying something like this is, to my mind, just as derogatory as blaming blacks, or asians, or what have you, for problems the world faces.

Level

(in reply to michaelGA)

Post #: 47

RE: The War in Iraq Costs... - 3/18/2006 3:37:21 PM

DelightMachine

Posts: 652
Joined: 1/21/2006
Status: offline

quote:

If Bush really wanted peace instead of more personal power, he could declare that we are eliminating all WMDs from our arsenal. That would put pressure on everyone else to join in an absolute ban instead of saying "we have them; you can't." After all, they are old tech, the last gasps of the industrial age.

They're useful for deterring other states from lobbing them at us. If we eliminated them all, then the first nation that decided to keep just a few dozen would be an enormous potential threat to us. If that country was the United Kingdom, maybe not such a threat, but likely as not it would be Iran, Russia or China.

quote:

We needed nukes because good old Curt LeMay's guys couldn't guarantee laying an egg within miles of a target so it made good military sense to erase a city to get a command post or a factory complex. Things have changed. This is the information age and five pounds of tetril can be put in just in the right place obviating the need to remove the surrounding city and its inhabitants.

Again, we need the power to retaliate with mass destruction if they lob them at us. What would stop them (say Russia or China) from threatening us if we didn't have them?

quote:

As long as one nation state can demand that it is its right to have WMDs, there is no moral pressure for anyone else to give up that right.

Moral pressure? Will Iran buckle to the moral pressure being applied to it now? Would Saddam have buckled under the moral pressure he was getting? I don't see it. How would it work?

As for comparing the threat of nuclear war with the current threat, it doesn't even matter if one is worse than the other if we start getting cities destroyed. This threat could well be messier (in terms of blood on the ground) than the Cold War was. One major city -- that's all it might take for us to have more death than we ever experienced during the Cold War. Yes, the Cold War could have resulted in more destruction than the terror threat. But it doesn't matter. We face the threats we have when we have them. We need cold, hard facts and cold, hard logic to face this, along with basic, obvious but hard moral choices.

If you can begin your policy prescription by saying, "In light of the threat of WMDs delivered by terrorists at some point in the future, we should ..." and if you have something that includes addressing that threat in whatever you advocate, then I'm listening. Otherwise, it's all beside the point. It's the only way I judge seriousness on the other side of these issues nowadays. I don't have time or patience for anyone not addressing the main threat.

(edited for typo and grammar)

< Message edited by DelightMachine -- 3/18/2006 3:40:27 PM >

_____________________________

I'd rather be in
Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg

(in reply to JohnWarren)

Post #: 48

RE: The War in Iraq Costs... - 3/18/2006 3:42:22 PM

JohnWarren

Posts: 3807
Joined: 3/18/2005
From: Delray Beach, FL
Status: offline

Wonderful morality. If you kill my innocent citizens, I'll kill your innocent citizens. Let's not forget that most of those people didn't elect their leaders. How much better to react with precision death aimed at those who give the orders. We can do that now; we couldn't before and the stuff in the research pipeline has even greater promise.

Fear begets fear; hate begets hate.

_____________________________

www.lovingdominant.org

(in reply to DelightMachine)

Post #: 49

RE: The War in Iraq Costs... - 3/18/2006 4:03:45 PM

DelightMachine

Posts: 652
Joined: 1/21/2006
Status: offline

quote:

Wonderful morality. If you kill my innocent citizens, I'll kill your innocent citizens. Let's not forget that most of those people didn't elect their leaders. How much better to react with precision death aimed at those who give the orders. We can do that now; we couldn't before and the stuff in the research pipeline has even greater promise.

Fear begets fear; hate begets hate.

You're getting close to name calling here. Mutual Assured Destruction seemed to work -- at least better than any alternative I heard about.

Tell me how immoral, brutal, ruthless, power-mad dictators who often didn't think too clearly, would have been better deterred. Even better, tell me how to stop the terrorists.

_____________________________

I'd rather be in
Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg

(in reply to JohnWarren)

Post #: 50

RE: The War in Iraq Costs... - 3/18/2006 4:15:51 PM

JohnWarren

Posts: 3807
Joined: 3/18/2005
From: Delray Beach, FL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DelightMachine

quote:

Wonderful morality. If you kill my innocent citizens, I'll kill your innocent citizens. Let's not forget that most of those people didn't elect their leaders. How much better to react with precision death aimed at those who give the orders. We can do that now; we couldn't before and the stuff in the research pipeline has even greater promise.

Fear begets fear; hate begets hate.

You're getting close to name calling here. Mutual Assured Destruction seemed to work -- at least better than any alternative I heard about.

I called an immoral policy immoral. I didn't call you that. And it was an OLD policy. It's not needed any more and in the absence of the kind of Soviet threat, it is immoral. As I said, I was a Tellerite but times have changed and so has the technology.

quote:

Tell me how immoral, brutal, ruthless, power-mad dictators who often didn't think too clearly, would have been better deterred. Even better, tell me how to stop the terrorists.

Kill the leaders... selectively. Of course we can do what we've always done. Make the immoral, brutal, ruthless, power-mad dictators our allies.

Every poor slob we torture becomes our enemy for life, every person we kill gives us a whole family that hates us. State based warfare won't stop the terrorists. It will just make more of them. The problem with burning down the barn is that the rats just leave... and move into the house.

_____________________________

www.lovingdominant.org

(in reply to DelightMachine)

Post #: 51

RE: The War in Iraq Costs... - 3/18/2006 4:32:06 PM

Chaingang

Posts: 1727
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline

Remember "2001: A Space Odyssey"?

Stone age scene: Ape-man kills a wild pig with a long bone used as a truncheon. At some later point the ape-man realizes he has become death and therefore casts the longest shadow. He uses this new power to intimidate an opposing tribe of ape-men for control of a watering hole. Territorial conflict has begun - the watering hole has become "my watering hole."

At a much later time, an enemy tribe learns how to kill also. Further conflicts erupt. Might makes right. The ascendance of the meanest bastard is achieved and becomes cyclical.

...

New stone age scene: Modern man through modern technology develops the nuclear hammer. He who has become death now casts a shadow on an untold scale: a button gets pushed, potential millions die. He uses this potential threat to assert economic and resource domination all over the world. The only way to defeat Mr. Death is to acquire the nuclear hammer for oneself.

And so it goes...

...

How to short circuit the cyclical game of Mr. Death: Put down the nuclear hammer. War is a game for ape-men.

_____________________________

"Everything flows, nothing stands still." (Πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει) - Heraclitus

(in reply to JohnWarren)

Post #: 52

RE: The War in Iraq Costs... - 3/18/2006 4:42:00 PM

Level

Posts: 25145
Joined: 3/3/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chaingang

Remember "2001: A Space Odyssey"?

Stone age scene: Ape-man kills a wild pig with a long bone used as a truncheon. At some later point the ape-man realizes he has become death and therefore casts the longest shadow. He uses this new power to intimidate an opposing tribe of ape-men for control of a watering hole. Territorial conflict has begun - the watering hole has become "my watering hole."

At a much later time, an enemy tribe learns how to kill also. Further conflicts erupt. Might makes right. The ascendance of the meanest bastard is achieved and becomes cyclical.

...

New stone age scene: Modern man through modern technology develops the nuclear hammer. He who has become death now casts a shadow on an untold scale: a button gets pushed, potential millions die. He uses this potential threat to assert economic and resource domination all over the world. The only way to defeat Mr. Death is to acquire the nuclear hammer for oneself.

And so it goes...

...

How to short circuit the cyclical game of Mr. Death: Put down the nuclear hammer. War is a game for ape-men.

You would need everyone holding said hammer to do so. I wish it would happen, but like they say, shit in one hand, wish in the other, see which fills up the quickest.

Level

(in reply to Chaingang)

Post #: 53

RE: The War in Iraq Costs... - 3/18/2006 5:32:32 PM

Chaingang

Posts: 1727
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline

Then violence is to be expected. There is no hope of putting it down or controlling it.

Nuclear escalation is a mug's game.

_____________________________

"Everything flows, nothing stands still." (Πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει) - Heraclitus

(in reply to Level)

Post #: 54

RE: The War in Iraq Costs... - 3/18/2006 6:26:35 PM

JohnWarren

Posts: 3807
Joined: 3/18/2005
From: Delray Beach, FL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chaingang

Then violence is to be expected. There is no hope of putting it down or controlling it.

Nuclear escalation is a mug's game.

There is hope. Weapons have been banned. We no longer have saw edged bayonets or lead bullets. Poison gas has been moved from a major player on the battlefield to something used by the marginalized.

Of course, banning weapons is usually done when their utility is called into question. This is why I'm done a 180 on atomic weapons. They simply aren't efficient at winning wars. Wars are not won by killing people. They are done by making the other side ineffective. We have better ways of doing that now than blowing up entire cities.

In one amazing move, the Japanese actually banned firearms after becoming quite adept with them. However, one cannot get rid of a weapon or weapons system by saying "I'll keep mine; you get rid of yours."

Anyone who knows my background knows I'm not a pacifist or an idealist. No one who has done what I have and seen what I have could be. It's a dirty evil world, but evil is not fought by attacking anyone in sight. Killing is necessary but it is also necessary to kill the bad people. This has two benefits. People who would like to be like the bad have second thoughts, and those who are not "bad" are not forced into hating us because we killed those important to them.

I guess the secret is to get rid of enemies without planting an entire new crop.

_____________________________

www.lovingdominant.org

(in reply to Chaingang)

Post #: 55

RE: The War in Iraq Costs... - 3/18/2006 7:28:15 PM

DelightMachine

Posts: 652
Joined: 1/21/2006
Status: offline

quote:

quote:
Tell me how immoral, brutal, ruthless, power-mad dictators who often didn't think too clearly, would have been better deterred. Even better, tell me how to stop the terrorists.

Kill the leaders... selectively. Of course we can do what we've always done. Make the immoral, brutal, ruthless, power-mad dictators our allies.

Every poor slob we torture becomes our enemy for life, every person we kill gives us a whole family that hates us. State based warfare won't stop the terrorists. It will just make more of them. The problem with burning down the barn is that the rats just leave... and move into the house.

And exactly how do we kill the dictators without setting off a war anyway? Or do all the flying monkeys suddenly start singing "Ding-dong, the witch is dead!"?

When we're talking about a movement, we need to fight more than the leaders. We've had some trouble killing leaders anyway -- we couldn't find Saddam, and we can't find Bin Laden yet, although I think we'll get him eventually. Is this your answer to fighting terrorism then -- kill the leaders? Anything else?

_____________________________

I'd rather be in
Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg

(in reply to JohnWarren)

Post #: 56

RE: The War in Iraq Costs... - 3/18/2006 9:00:55 PM

Moloch

Posts: 1090
Joined: 6/25/2005
Status: offline

Guys you do realize that half of Russian nuclear scientists are working over seas now, most of them WERE employed by Iraq, now they moved onto Iran.

(in reply to DelightMachine)

Post #: 57

RE: The War in Iraq Costs... - 3/18/2006 9:06:32 PM

cloudboy

Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline

Good luck sorting that stuff out.

The documentary WHY WE FIGHT just came out, and I can't wait to see it.

(in reply to JohnWarren)

Post #: 58

RE: The War in Iraq Costs... - 3/18/2006 9:18:23 PM

FangsNfeet

Posts: 3758
Joined: 12/3/2004
Status: offline

quote:

Guys you do realize that half of Russian nuclear scientists are working over seas now, most of them WERE employed by Iraq, now they moved onto Iran.

Well, when you no longer have job, you move on somewheres else. They have to work don't they?

Any ways, do you mind posting a few sources that back your statement? I'd like to read up on what all the Old USSR Nuclear scientist have been up to these days.

_____________________________

I'm Godzilla and you're Japan

(in reply to Moloch)

Post #: 59

RE: The War in Iraq Costs... - 3/18/2006 9:19:47 PM

Moloch

Posts: 1090
Joined: 6/25/2005
Status: offline

I dont have sources I have freinds and family back in Russia.

(in reply to FangsNfeet)

Post #: 60

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: The War in Iraq Costs...

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.094