Bush may use nuclear weapon on Iraq!

[Moonbeam]

Double speak is what you hear with half comprehension, but there's such a pile developing here I'll have to get a bigger shovel, I guess.


Ok back a bit to rockhound:
---------------
"Moonbeam,

Let me ask you this...Knowing what you know today and throughout history, would killing Hitler have been the right thing to do before World War II?? Saving how many millions of lives in the process by simply going after one guy? Or for that matter, preemptively striking Japan's naval fleet BEFORE they struck Pearl Harbor...again saving how many thousands of lives on BOTH sides! Or killing 19 terrorists that you knew could possibly carry out the worst terrorist attack on the U.S. in order to save 3000 American lives and prevent all the pain and suffering which occured afterward? The list can go on and on. You have to look back on history when you view our current situation, something many, many people simply fail to do. History teaches us a lot. But once something has happened it is history and it is too late, i.e. a nuclear bomb being detonated in Los Angeles. Too late sir to take any action after the fact. Its already done. Think of how many people would die in this event and tell me you are ok with this. Tell this entire board that you are ok if potentially their family members may be killed and that all we had to do to prevent it was going after one guy.

Also, the same case cannot be made against us as we are making against Hussein, because nowhere in history has the U.S. gassed its own people, used WMD's against anybody else in the world except for Japan which ultimately ended the war - which is indisputable. Do you know what the casualty estimates were if the US was to invade Japan at the time??? They were talking somewhere in the neighborhood of 500,000 to 1 million - ON OUR SIDE!!! And you would be ok with that? Of course we have nukes, chem and bio weapons, but we don't use them. Unlike other countries - Iraq."

Well in another thread you said I didn't know any history so I guess I'd just let it replay as it was in my ignorance. You aren't, in other words, very consistent in your arguments. Just mentioned that for my own amusement. Sorry.

Ok, knowing what I know I would pop Hitler the Emperor and the 19 terrorists myself, personally assuming I couldn't disable the future in some other way. There are a couple of problems, though. Other people would call me insane and lock me up because I 'knew' what can't be known. The sane world would try to stop me. Also, the only reason I would act was because I already 'knew'. In your hypothetical I would really know, not just be guessing or sure. I would have come through time.

As to the rest, we have gased and tested WMD on our own people. We are one up over the rest of the world in the use of nukes and bucking for twice. We already have the worst record of any nation in the irresponsible use of nukes. Your notion that it was OK on Japan is pure conjecture and propaganda. YOU DO NOT KNOW!. You are not from an alternative universe. Your belief is a tennent of faith, a supposition, not a fact. Arguing with you is like arguing with a propaganda machine. You have stock answers held by uncritical analysis and based on supposition.
------------------

ELFenix, Freud opened a door alone. He had no living teacher. It isn't easy to see oneself. Not easy at all.

----------------
Judgement quote:

"Nothing but agreement from me here, it is impossible to compare the US, UK, any country from Europe... even N. Korea for that matter with Iraq when it comes to the dangers of them having possession of WMD. Sure the US and UK may have them, but does that mean any other country has to fear those weapons being used on themselves by the US or UK? The answer is blatantly, no... they have no reason to worry. When Saddam has them on the other hand..."

All you offer here as fact is opinion. It is impossible to compare? Not so. It is possible to compare, it's just impossible for you because you are blind in a particular way. Many would argue that NK is far and away a bigger threat. With that I would agree. Whom do you think you can reassure with 'thet have no reason to worry'? Your assurance is lame for a number of reasons. You have no idea as to the character of those who hold that power and you, about whom you could actually know the truth, aren't the one with your finger on the button. The only person I ever trusted was me and J Carter, and I'd want an armed guard on him at all times. Power corrupts the corruptable, dude. You don't want small cadres of think alikes making life and death decissions for millions in the dark. The light doesn't help much here either. In short your blerb was all opinion. You are ready to kill based on opinion. Sad.

As to Clinton, the temptation to use nuclear weapons has been and is a part of the American strategic equasion. I don't think I'm two faced about my stand here, but I can't be sure. I don't remember ever seeing this Cilnton thing aired in the news so I had no occassion to voice opposition. The actors aren't what's relevent, it's principle.
-------------------------

MrPALCO, nice to see you in full blown psychosis. Killing for Christ. Now nice.

 

[Moonbeam]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Rockhound

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Jmman
Damn, I guess the lib's don't want to play.......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You got that right Jmman. They never do. Once you put them down, they back off, except for the masochists. They just can't back anything up. They can't. Its like a mind block or something.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



lol
--------------
Too bad I was replying while these were being posted otherwise I could have added something equally intelligent like, I had to wait for a large enough collective of jackles to form to add up to a single mind of sufficient wattage to bark.

 

[Rockhound]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Double speak is what you hear with half comprehension, but there's such a pile developing here I'll have to get a bigger shovel, I guess.


Ok back a bit to rockhound:
---------------
"Moonbeam,

Let me ask you this...Knowing what you know today and throughout history, would killing Hitler have been the right thing to do before World War II?? Saving how many millions of lives in the process by simply going after one guy? Or for that matter, preemptively striking Japan's naval fleet BEFORE they struck Pearl Harbor...again saving how many thousands of lives on BOTH sides! Or killing 19 terrorists that you knew could possibly carry out the worst terrorist attack on the U.S. in order to save 3000 American lives and prevent all the pain and suffering which occured afterward? The list can go on and on. You have to look back on history when you view our current situation, something many, many people simply fail to do. History teaches us a lot. But once something has happened it is history and it is too late, i.e. a nuclear bomb being detonated in Los Angeles. Too late sir to take any action after the fact. Its already done. Think of how many people would die in this event and tell me you are ok with this. Tell this entire board that you are ok if potentially their family members may be killed and that all we had to do to prevent it was going after one guy.

Also, the same case cannot be made against us as we are making against Hussein, because nowhere in history has the U.S. gassed its own people, used WMD's against anybody else in the world except for Japan which ultimately ended the war - which is indisputable. Do you know what the casualty estimates were if the US was to invade Japan at the time??? They were talking somewhere in the neighborhood of 500,000 to 1 million - ON OUR SIDE!!! And you would be ok with that? Of course we have nukes, chem and bio weapons, but we don't use them. Unlike other countries - Iraq."

Well in another thread you said I didn't know any history so I guess I'd just let it replay as it was in my ignorance. You aren't, in other words, very consistent in your arguments. Just mentioned that for my own amusement. Sorry.

Ok, knowing what I know I would pop Hitler the Emperor and the 19 terrorists myself, personally assuming I couldn't disable the future in some other way. There are a couple of problems, though. Other people would call me insane and lock me up because I 'knew' what can't be known. The sane world would try to stop me. Also, the only reason I would act was because I already 'knew'. In your hypothetical I would really know, not just be guessing or sure. I would have come through time.

As to the rest, we have gased and tested WMD on our own people. We are one up over the rest of the world in the use of nukes and bucking for twice. We already have the worst record of any nation in the irresponsible use of nukes. Your notion that it was OK on Japan is pure conjecture and propaganda. YOU DO NOT KNOW!. You are not from an alternative universe. Your belief is a tennent of faith, a supposition, not a fact. Arguing with you is like arguing with a propaganda machine. You have stock answers held by uncritical analysis and based on supposition.
------------------

ELFenix, Freud opened a door alone. He had no living teacher. It isn't easy to see oneself. Not easy at all.

----------------
Judgement quote:

"Nothing but agreement from me here, it is impossible to compare the US, UK, any country from Europe... even N. Korea for that matter with Iraq when it comes to the dangers of them having possession of WMD. Sure the US and UK may have them, but does that mean any other country has to fear those weapons being used on themselves by the US or UK? The answer is blatantly, no... they have no reason to worry. When Saddam has them on the other hand..."

All you offer here as fact is opinion. It is impossible to compare? Not so. It is possible to compare, it's just impossible for you because you are blind in a particular way. Many would argue that NK is far and away a bigger threat. With that I would agree. Whom do you think you can reassure with 'thet have no reason to worry'? Your assurance is lame for a number of reasons. You have no idea as to the character of those who hold that power and you, about whom you could actually know the truth, aren't the one with your finger on the button. The only person I ever trusted was me and J Carter, and I'd want an armed guard on him at all times. Power corrupts the corruptable, dude. You don't want small cadres of think alikes making life and death decissions for millions in the dark. The light doesn't help much here either. In short your blerb was all opinion. You are ready to kill based on opinion. Sad.

As to Clinton, the temptation to use nuclear weapons has been and is a part of the American strategic equasion. I don't think I'm two faced about my stand here, but I can't be sure. I don't remember ever seeing this Cilnton thing aired in the news so I had no occassion to voice opposition. The actors aren't what's relevent, it's principle.
-------------------------

MrPALCO, nice to see you in full blown psychosis. Killing for Christ. Now nice.

Well so far moonbeam I don't see you quoting any history at all detailing your reasons for why we should not do what we need to do. My arguments are very consistent. I'm being logical, straightforward, citing examples, giving you reasons why I think the way I do, etc.

Of course no one knows the exact future. I'm not saying that I do. But what you fail to realize are the consequences of NOT ACTING! AS IN THE CASE OF HITLER, AS IN THE CASE OF THE JAPANESE, AS IN THE CASE OF THE TERRORISTS!!!!!

Ok, you state we have gassed and used WMD's on our own people. CITE THE EVIDENCE!! Show me!! PROVE IT TO ME! Show me the HISTORY of this. But, this is besides the point anyway. It is irrelevant at this point in time. We have not, are not, going to use WMD's against our people now, our neighbors, other countries, etc. simply for the sake of doing so. Whereas Saddam will.

Yes we have used nukes. It was not irresponsible. Yes it cost Japanese civilian lives. True. I'm not disputing this. But versus how many lives it would have otherwise cost by invading Japan, especially American lives is something you have to seriously consider.

I do not know what? That it was ok to potentially save 1 million American lives by dropping a nuclear weapon that caused approximately 150,000 casualties??!! And at the same time ended a bloody and fierce war with the Japanese. A war that THEY STARTED I might add. You're dam right it was! This million on top of the thousands of casualties we had already suffered.

No, my belief is based on fact, history and what actually happened. You cannot or will not cite anything, use facts or anything else. You only use your opinion. But an opinion which isn't credible.

 

[Jmman]

This is a great statement from our president concering Iraq and the threat they pose to our safety.....
"If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S.
power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed," the President
said.

"If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far
greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his
neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And
mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will
deploy them, and he will use them. Because we are acting today, it is
less likely that we will face these dangers in the future."



These words from our president are very true. One little side note though; these words are from President Clinton.......

 

[Moonbeam]

Rockhound Quote:

"No, my belief is based on fact, history and what actually happened. You cannot or will not cite anything, use facts or anything else. You only use your opinion. But an opinion which isn't credible."
---------------------

The force is strong with this one.

You have it all backward. You should have said, "My belief is based on opinion as to what is a fact, what I think history says and my interpretation of what happened. You don't need to cite anything to point this out to me. You use only this observation, but I demonstrate you are correct."

Another view of history:

Controversial USA Government Activities
> -------------------
> from: Douglas Walker
> apta@discover.net
>
>
> --------------------
> A History of Secret U.S. Government Programs
>
> The following is a list of this century's most controversial
> government activities. It will be updated regularly in order to keep
> readers abreast of newly declassified materials:
>
> 1931
> Dr. Cornelius Rhoads, under the auspices of the Rockefeller Institute
> for Medical Investigations, infects human subjects with cancer cells.
> He later goes on to establish the U.S. Army Biological Warfare
> facilities in Maryland, Utah, and Panama, and is named to the U.S.
> Atomic Energy Commission. While there, he begins a series of
> radiation exposure experiments on American soldiers and civilian
> hospital patients.
>
> 1932
> The Tuskegee Syphilis Study begins. 200 black men diagnosed with
> syphilis are never told of their illness, are denied treatment, and
> instead are used as human guinea pigs in order to follow the
> progression and symptoms of the disease. They all subsequently die
> from syphilis, their families never told that they could have been
> treated.
>
> 1935
> The Pellagra Incident. After millions of individuals die from
> Pellagra over a span of two decades, the U.S. Public Health Service
> finally acts to stem the disease. The director of the agency admits
> it had known for at least 20 years that Pellagra is caused by a
> niacin deficiency but failed to act since most of the deaths occurred
> within poverty-striken black populations.
>
> 1940
> Four hundred prisoners in Chicago are infected with Malaria in order
> to study the effects of new and experimental drugs to combat the
> disease. Nazi doctors later on trial at Nuremberg cite this American
> study to defend their own actions during the Holocaust.
>
> 1942
> Chemical Warfare Services begins mustard gas experiments on
> approximately 4,000 servicemen. The experiments continue until 1945
> and made use of Seventh Day Adventists who chose to become human
> guinea pigs rather than serve on active duty.
>
> 1943
> In response to Japan's full-scale germ warfare program, the U.S.
> begins research on biological weapons at Fort Detrick, MD.
>
> 1944
> U.S. Navy uses human subjects to test gas masks and clothing.
> Individuals were locked in a gas chamber and exposed to mustard gas
> and lewisite.
>
> 1945
> Project Paperclip is initiated. The U.S. State Department, Army
> intelligence, and the CIA recruit Nazi scientists and offer them
> immunity and secret identities in exchange for work on top secret
> government projects in the United States.
>
> 'Program F' is implemented by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission
> (AEC). This is the most extensive U.S. study of the health effects of
> fluoride, which was the key chemical component in atomic bomb
> production. One of the most toxic chemicals known to man, fluoride,
> it is found, causes marked adverse effects to the central nervous
> system but much of the information is squelched in the name of
> national security because of fear that lawsuits would undermine
> full-scale production of atomic bombs.
>
> 1946
> Patients in VA hospitals are used as guinea pigs for medical
> experiments. In order to allay suspicions, the order is given to
> change the word 'experiments' to 'investigations' or 'observations'
> whenever reporting a medical study performed in one of the nation's
> veteran's hospitals.
>
> 1947
> Colonel E. E. Kirkpatrick of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission issues
> a secret document (Document 07075001, January 8, 1947) stating that
> the agency will begin administering intravenous doses of radioactive
> substances to human subjects.
>
> The CIA begins its study of LSD as a potential weapon for use by
> American intelligence. Human subjects (both civilian and military)
> are used with and without their knowledge.
>
> 1950
> Department of Defense begins plans to detonate nuclear weapons in
> desert areas and monitor downwind residents for medical problems and
> mortality rates.
>
> In an experiment to determine how susceptible an American city would
> be to biological attack, the U.S. Navy sprays a cloud of bacteria
> from ships over San Francisco. Monitoring devices are situated
> throughout the city in order to test the extent of infection. Many
> residents become ill with pneumonia-like symptoms.
>
> 1951
> Department of Defense begins open air tests using disease-producing
> bacteria and viruses. Tests last through 1969 and there is concern
> that people in the surrounding areas have been exposed.
>
> 1953
> U.S. military releases clouds of zinc cadmium sulfide gas over
> Winnipeg, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Fort Wayne, the Monocacy River
> Valley in Maryland, and Leesburg, Virginia. Their intent is to
> determine how efficiently they could disperse chemical agents.
>
> Joint Army-Navy-CIA experiments are conducted in which tens of
> thousands of people in New York and San Francisco are exposed to the
> airborne germs Serratia marcescens and Bacillus glogigii.
>
> CIA initiates Project MKULTRA. This is an eleven year research
> program designed to produce and test drugs and biological agents that
> would be used for mind control and behavior modification. Six of the
> subprojects involved testing the agents on unwitting human beings.
>
> 1955
> The CIA, in an experiment to test its ability to infect human
> populations with biological agents, releases a bacteria withdrawn
> from the Army's biological warfare arsenal over Tampa Bay, Fl.
>
> Army Chemical Corps continues LSD research, studying its potential
> use as a chemical incapacitating agent. More than 1,000 Americans
> participate in the tests, which continue until 1958.
>
> 1956
> U.S. military releases mosquitoes infected with Yellow Fever over
> Savannah, Ga and Avon Park, Fl. Following each test, Army agents
> posing as public health officials test victims for effects.
>
> 1958
> LSD is tested on 95 volunteers at the Army's Chemical Warfare
> Laboratories for its effect on intelligence.
>
> 1960
> The Army Assistant Chief-of-Staff for Intelligence (ACSI) authorizes
> field testing of LSD in Europe and the Far East. Testing of the
> European population is code named Project THIRD CHANCE; testing of
> the Asian population is code named Project DERBY HAT.
>
> 1965
> Project CIA and Department of Defense begin Project MKSEARCH, a
> program to develop a capability to manipulate human behavior through
> the use of mind-altering drugs.
>
> 1965
> Prisoners at the Holmesburg State Prison in Philadelphia are
> subjected to dioxin, the highly toxic chemical component of Agent
> Orange used in Viet Nam. The men are later studied for development of
> cancer, which indicates that Agent Orange had been a suspected
> carcinogen all along.
>
> 1966
> CIA initiates Project MKOFTEN, a program to test the toxicological
> effects of certain drugs on humans and animals.
>
> U.S. Army dispenses Bacillus subtilis variant niger throughout the
> New York City subway system. More than a million civilians are
> exposed when army scientists drop lightbulbs filled with the bacteria
> onto ventilation grates.
>
> 1967
> CIA and Department of Defense implement Project MKNAOMI, successor to
> MKULTRA and designed to maintain, stockpile and test biological and
> chemical weapons.
>
> 1968
> CIA experiments with the possibility of poisoning drinking water by
> injecting chemicals into the water supply of the FDA in Washington,
> D.C.
>
> 1969
> Dr. Robert MacMahan of the Department of Defense requests from
> congress $10 million to develop, within 5 to 10 years, a synthetic
> biological agent to which no natural immunity exists.
>
> 1970
> Funding for the synthetic biological agent is obtained under H.R.
> 15090. The project, under the supervision of the CIA, is carried out
> by the Special Operations Division at Fort Detrick, the army's top
> secret biological weapons facility. Speculation is raised that
> molecular biology techniques are used to produce AIDS-like
> retroviruses.
>
> United States intensifies its development of 'ethnic weapons'
> (Military Review, Nov., 1970), designed to selectively target and
> eliminate specific ethnic groups who are susceptible due to genetic
> differences and variations in DNA.
>
> 1975
> The virus section of Fort Detrick's Center for Biological Warfare
> Research is renamed the Fredrick Cancer Research Facilities and
> placed under the supervision of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) .
> It is here that a special virus cancer program is initiated by the
> U.S. Navy, purportedly to develop cancer-causing viruses. It is also
> here that retrovirologists isolate a virus to which no immunity
> exists. It is later named HTLV (Human T-cell Leukemia Virus).
>
> 1977
> Senate hearings on Health and Scientific Research confirm that 239
> populated areas had been contaminated with biological agents between
> 1949 and 1969. Some of the areas included San Francisco, Washington,
> D.C., Key West, Panama City, Minneapolis, and St. Louis.
>
> 1978
> Experimental Hepatitis B vaccine trials, conducted by the CDC, begin
> in New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco. Ads for research subjects
> specifically ask for promiscuous homosexual men.
>
> 1981
> First cases of AIDS are confirmed in homosexual men in New York, Los
> Angeles and San Francisco, triggering speculation that AIDS may have
> been introduced via the Hepatitis B vaccine
>
> 1985
> According to the journal Science (227:173-177), HTLV and VISNA, a
> fatal sheep virus, are very similar, indicating a close taxonomic and
> evolutionary relationship.
>
> 1986
> According to the Proceedings of the National Academy of
> Sciences(83:4007-4011), HIV and VISNA are highly similar and share
> all structural elements, except for a small segment which is nearly
> identical to HTLV. This leads to speculation that HTLV and VISNA may
> have been linked to produce a new retrovirus to which no natural
> immunity exists.
>
> A report to Congress reveals that the U.S. Government's current
> generation of biological agents includes: modified viruses, naturally
> occurring toxins, and agents that are altered through genetic
> engineering to change immunological character and prevent treatment
> by all existing vaccines.
>
> 1987
> Department of Defense admits that, despite a treaty banning research
> and development of biological agents, it continues to operate
> research facilities at 127 facilities and universities around the
> nation.
>
> 1990
> More than 1500 six-month old black and hispanic babies in Los Angeles
> are given an 'experimental' measles vaccine that had never been
> licensed for use in the United States. CDC later admits that parents
> were never informed that the vaccine being injected to their children
> was experimental.
>
> 1994
> With a technique called 'gene tracking', Dr. Garth Nicolson at the MD
> Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, TX discovers that many returning
> Desert Storm veterans are infected with an altered strain of
> Mycoplasmaincognitus, a microbe commonly used in the production of
> biological weapons. Incorporated into its molecular structure is 40
> percent of the HIV protein coat, indicating that it had been
> man-made.
>
> Senator John D. Rockefeller issues a report revealing that for at
> least 50 years the Department of Defense has used hundreds of
> thousands of military personnel in human experiments and for
> intentional exposure to dangerous substances. Materials included
> mustard and nerve gas, ionizing radiation, psychochemicals,
> hallucinogens, and drugs used during the Gulf War .
>
> 1995
> U.S. Government admits that it had offered Japanese war criminals and
> scientists who had performed human medical experiments salaries and
> immunity from prosecution in exchange for data on biological warfare
> research.
>
> Dr. Garth Nicolson, uncovers evidence that the biological agents used
> during the Gulf War had been manufactured in Houston, TX and Boca
> Raton, Fl and tested on prisoners in the Texas Department of
> Corrections.
>
> 1996
> Department of Defense admits that Desert Storm soldiers were exposed
> to chemical agents.
>
> 1997
> Eighty-eight members of Congress sign a letter demanding an
> investigation into bioweapons use & Gulf War Syndrome.

 

[Moonbeam]

"If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond..."

Hehe, isn't it interesting that you assume you know what respond should mean. We respond according to our repartory.

Oh, Johnny-one-note, was a psycho-mass-killer, he always responded with nuclear winter.

 

[Jmman]

Well, since that is an historical statement it is very easy to see what Clinton meant by "respond". These comments were made as we bombed the crap out of Iraq in 1998......what makes today's situation any diffferent? There is a Republican in the White House? Yeah, that's what I thought.....

And how many allies helped us during the 1998 attacks? Yeah, that's right, one, England......where was all of this righteous indignation then? Funny how history repeats itself, but some people have such huge blinders on they fail to see the hypocrisy of their position...

 

[Moonbeam]

Hehe, speaking of blinders did you read my post. Clinton didn't 'respond' with nuclear weapons and no big protest developed because that's not where he took it.

 

[Jmman]

Well, let me see. Clinton changed our nuclear policy which had been in force since 1981 so that we could use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries like Iraq, but merely the thought of Bush defending our troops if attacked with WMD gets all of the libby's panties in a knot. Last time I checked it was Clinton who officially changed our nuclear policy, not Bush. No hypocrisy there. This little blurb is pretty interesting as well.....


"Clinton Ready to Violate Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty

Plans to Use Nuclear Weapons Against Iraq in Place Since November 1997

Demonstrations Set in 30 Cities
New York City Protest Thursday, February 5, Times Square
Recruiting Station 5:00 p.m.

The US is preparing to use nuclear weapons against Iraq in the coming
weeks. Extensive changes were secretly made in U.S. nuclear weapons
policy to allow the use of tactical nuclear weapons against Iraq. The
policy changes went into effect in November of 1997. The "First
Strike" option is in direct violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty which both Iraq and the U.S. have signed. The plans to use
nuclear weapons against Iraq were reported in the February 1 issue of
the NY-based Newsday. The International Action Center released a
notification to the press on the same issue on January 29th, 1998.

True, Clinton did not end up using them against Iraq, but Bush to date hasn't used them either.......

Yeah, that's right folks, Clinton put an option in this policy about attacking first with nukes.....

 

[Moonbeam]

So you think Clinton had good judgment. WEEEEEEEEE

"I like this part: The "First Strike" option is in direct violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty which both Iraq and the U.S. have signed."

Nice refutation of my stand.

Also it was a bunch of wacho liberals that bitched, right?

 

[Cabn12]

10 bucks says Moonbeam is a Berkley professor, has a goatee, wears a tweed jacket and drives a Volkswagen . Any takers?

 

[Cabn12]

Oh I almost forgot. I can?t believe it a liberal from San Francisco?? No Way!!!!

 

[Judgement]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Double speak is what you hear with half comprehension, but there's such a pile developing here I'll have to get a bigger shovel, I guess.


Ok back a bit to rockhound:
---------------
"Moonbeam,

Let me ask you this...Knowing what you know today and throughout history, would killing Hitler have been the right thing to do before World War II?? Saving how many millions of lives in the process by simply going after one guy? Or for that matter, preemptively striking Japan's naval fleet BEFORE they struck Pearl Harbor...again saving how many thousands of lives on BOTH sides! Or killing 19 terrorists that you knew could possibly carry out the worst terrorist attack on the U.S. in order to save 3000 American lives and prevent all the pain and suffering which occured afterward? The list can go on and on. You have to look back on history when you view our current situation, something many, many people simply fail to do. History teaches us a lot. But once something has happened it is history and it is too late, i.e. a nuclear bomb being detonated in Los Angeles. Too late sir to take any action after the fact. Its already done. Think of how many people would die in this event and tell me you are ok with this. Tell this entire board that you are ok if potentially their family members may be killed and that all we had to do to prevent it was going after one guy.

Also, the same case cannot be made against us as we are making against Hussein, because nowhere in history has the U.S. gassed its own people, used WMD's against anybody else in the world except for Japan which ultimately ended the war - which is indisputable. Do you know what the casualty estimates were if the US was to invade Japan at the time??? They were talking somewhere in the neighborhood of 500,000 to 1 million - ON OUR SIDE!!! And you would be ok with that? Of course we have nukes, chem and bio weapons, but we don't use them. Unlike other countries - Iraq."

Well in another thread you said I didn't know any history so I guess I'd just let it replay as it was in my ignorance. You aren't, in other words, very consistent in your arguments. Just mentioned that for my own amusement. Sorry.

Ok, knowing what I know I would pop Hitler the Emperor and the 19 terrorists myself, personally assuming I couldn't disable the future in some other way. There are a couple of problems, though. Other people would call me insane and lock me up because I 'knew' what can't be known. The sane world would try to stop me. Also, the only reason I would act was because I already 'knew'. In your hypothetical I would really know, not just be guessing or sure. I would have come through time.

As to the rest, we have gased and tested WMD on our own people. We are one up over the rest of the world in the use of nukes and bucking for twice. We already have the worst record of any nation in the irresponsible use of nukes. Your notion that it was OK on Japan is pure conjecture and propaganda. YOU DO NOT KNOW!. You are not from an alternative universe. Your belief is a tennent of faith, a supposition, not a fact. Arguing with you is like arguing with a propaganda machine. You have stock answers held by uncritical analysis and based on supposition.
------------------

ELFenix, Freud opened a door alone. He had no living teacher. It isn't easy to see oneself. Not easy at all.

----------------
Judgement quote:

"Nothing but agreement from me here, it is impossible to compare the US, UK, any country from Europe... even N. Korea for that matter with Iraq when it comes to the dangers of them having possession of WMD. Sure the US and UK may have them, but does that mean any other country has to fear those weapons being used on themselves by the US or UK? The answer is blatantly, no... they have no reason to worry. When Saddam has them on the other hand..."

All you offer here as fact is opinion. It is impossible to compare? Not so. It is possible to compare, it's just impossible for you because you are blind in a particular way. Many would argue that NK is far and away a bigger threat. With that I would agree. Whom do you think you can reassure with 'thet have no reason to worry'? Your assurance is lame for a number of reasons. You have no idea as to the character of those who hold that power and you, about whom you could actually know the truth, aren't the one with your finger on the button. The only person I ever trusted was me and J Carter, and I'd want an armed guard on him at all times. Power corrupts the corruptable, dude. You don't want small cadres of think alikes making life and death decissions for millions in the dark. The light doesn't help much here either. In short your blerb was all opinion. You are ready to kill based on opinion. Sad.

As to Clinton, the temptation to use nuclear weapons has been and is a part of the American strategic equasion. I don't think I'm two faced about my stand here, but I can't be sure. I don't remember ever seeing this Cilnton thing aired in the news so I had no occassion to voice opposition. The actors aren't what's relevent, it's principle.
-------------------------

MrPALCO, nice to see you in full blown psychosis. Killing for Christ. Now nice.

Ok, so they can be compared... does that make it a just comparison? I could compare an apple to a dolphin, doesn't mean jack squat. As for the "no reason to worry" comments, for all intensive purposes they are in no immediate threat. They have no reason to worry about random attacks from the US or UK on their citizens... how could anyone disagree with this? Of course there is no complete saftey with anything in this world, but compared to the likelyhood of an attack by Iraq the chances become as close to zlitch as can be found. There is no question that power corrupts, I don't believe that has much to do with any of your points or my points though. You are right no one should have to make decisions in the dark, and most of my 'blerb' was opinion. It was not a real comment about my opinion on the situation. Regardless, very few things can be proven without a doubt in this world, and by the time they can be proven it is almost always all but too late for anything to be done. I will take my opinion that Saddam is a threat to the free world, and his own people, and he needs to be eliminated before he is able to act upon any of his wishes over not acting on the threat and waiting for innocent people to die. Since you seem to like arguing this point, it must be your opinion that Saddam is no immediate threat to anyone and should be left alone? Do you not value the lives of innocent people? Should we ignore Saddam, give him a pat on the back and say, we know you're hiding your sh!t from us, but since we have no proof... have a nice life just dont kill any of us, stick to your own people, and we will leave you alone?

Opinion is the best you can get some time, not all opinions can be weighed the same. You cannot weigh the opinion of a hockey coach the same as a football coach at a hockey game. Just as you cannot weigh an opinion with substatial probability the same as one where you are unsure of the probability. The probability that Saddam will act once he has control over WMD is high, I don't see how this could be denied. Yet you seem to find it acceptable to ignore this probability, saying thats all I have to offer and all that matter is facts, while you offer nothing but your own opinion that Iraq should not be delt with because it would cause more harm then good? Where are your FACTS that this is the case

 

[Moonbeam]

Judgment, just as a point of information to you and perhaps for the second time as this was pointed out by somebody to somebody, likely you, a few days ago. The expression isn't 'for all intensive purposes' it's 'for all intents and purposes'.

"Ok, so they can be compared... does that make it a just comparison? I could compare an apple to a dolphin, doesn't mean jack squat."

Of course, everything depends on the kind of comparison one wants to make.

As for the "no reason to worry" comments, for all (intensive purposes) they are in no immediate threat. They have no reason to worry about random attacks from the US or UK on their citizens... how could anyone disagree with this?"

How about Iraq and apparently NK. Why does an increasing number of people see us as the bigest world threat?

"Of course there is no complete saftey with anything in this world, but compared to the likelyhood of an attack by Iraq the chances become as close to zlitch as can be found."

Pure conjecture. We are going to preempt any threat we see. Who will decide what's a threat?

"There is no question that power corrupts, I don't believe that has much to do with any of your points or my points though."

See who will decide above.

"You are right no one should have to make decisions in the dark, and most of my 'blerb' was opinion. It was not a real comment about my opinion on the situation. Regardless, very few things can be proven without a doubt in this world, and by the time they can be proven it is almost always all but too late for anything to be done."

Exactly why we don't want rogue nations deciding who is a threat to them and wipping the imaginary enemy out before they can be stopped"

"I will take my opinion that Saddam is a threat to the free world, and his own people, and he needs to be eliminated before he is able to act upon any of his wishes over not acting on the threat and waiting for innocent people to die."

Thereby killing innocent Iraqis and becomming the monster you wish to destroy.

"Since you seem to like arguing this point, it must be your opinion that Saddam is no immediate threat to anyone and should be left alone?"

Not my opinion at all.

"Do you not value the lives of innocent people?"

It's you who wants to mass kill which will include innocents, sorry.

"Should we ignore Saddam, give him a pat on the back and say, we know you're hiding your sh!t from us, but since we have no proof... have a nice life just dont kill any of us, stick to your own people, and we will leave you alone?"

Not my opinion at all.

"Opinion is the best you can get some time, not all opinions can be weighed the same. You cannot weigh the opinion of a hockey coach the same as a football coach at a hockey game. Just as you cannot weigh an opinion with substatial probability the same as one where you are unsure of the probability."

Exactly why I don't trust the opinion of the paranoid who are afraid to live in a world of uncertainty and would rather mass kill other people so they can sleep at night.

"The probability that Saddam will act once he has control over WMD is high, I don't see how this could be denied."

That's as obvious as this is just your opinion. I keep hearing how Saddam is sane.

"Yet you seem to find it acceptable to ignore this probability, saying thats all I have to offer and all that matter is facts, while you offer nothing but your own opinion that Iraq should not be delt with because it would cause more harm then good? Where are your FACTS that this is the case"

I don't find it acceptable at all. I offer nothing, just like you, because I have only my opinions. The difference between us is that you are ready to kill for yours and I am not. I am not saying thaqt Iraq should not be delt with. The question is how to deal with it.

You are stuffed full of opinions that other people are going to die because of. I call that arrogance.

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: Cabn12
10 bucks says Moonbeam is a Berkley professor, has a goatee, wears a tweed jacket and drives a Volkswagen . Any takers?

Naa, that's a sucker's bet!

 

[Moonbeam]

Naa, if it was a suckers bet, you'd take it. Geez.

 

[Cabn12]

Moonbeam, no offense but I think you?re an arrogant, condescending Marxist. I think anybody who would elect a know socialist (Nancy Pelosi) should have their right to vote in America rescinded. Why is it that just about every liberal whacko comes from the left coast? I can?t wait for the day San Francisco drops off into the ocean. The rest of America (and real Americans not left over communists) will rejoice!

 

[Moonbeam]

No offence taken.

 

[Judgement]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Judgment, just as a point of information to you and perhaps for the second time as this was pointed out by somebody to somebody, likely you, a few days ago. The expression isn't 'for all intensive purposes' it's 'for all intents and purposes'.

"Ok, so they can be compared... does that make it a just comparison? I could compare an apple to a dolphin, doesn't mean jack squat."

Of course, everything depends on the kind of comparison one wants to make.

As for the "no reason to worry" comments, for all (intensive purposes) they are in no immediate threat. They have no reason to worry about random attacks from the US or UK on their citizens... how could anyone disagree with this?"

How about Iraq and apparently NK. Why does an increasing number of people see us as the bigest world threat?

"Of course there is no complete saftey with anything in this world, but compared to the likelyhood of an attack by Iraq the chances become as close to zlitch as can be found."

Pure conjecture. We are going to preempt any threat we see. Who will decide what's a threat?

"There is no question that power corrupts, I don't believe that has much to do with any of your points or my points though."

See who will decide above.

"You are right no one should have to make decisions in the dark, and most of my 'blerb' was opinion. It was not a real comment about my opinion on the situation. Regardless, very few things can be proven without a doubt in this world, and by the time they can be proven it is almost always all but too late for anything to be done."

Exactly why we don't want rogue nations deciding who is a threat to them and wipping the imaginary enemy out before they can be stopped"

"I will take my opinion that Saddam is a threat to the free world, and his own people, and he needs to be eliminated before he is able to act upon any of his wishes over not acting on the threat and waiting for innocent people to die."

Thereby killing innocent Iraqis and becomming the monster you wish to destroy.

"Since you seem to like arguing this point, it must be your opinion that Saddam is no immediate threat to anyone and should be left alone?"

Not my opinion at all.

"Do you not value the lives of innocent people?"

It's you who wants to mass kill which will include innocents, sorry.

"Should we ignore Saddam, give him a pat on the back and say, we know you're hiding your sh!t from us, but since we have no proof... have a nice life just dont kill any of us, stick to your own people, and we will leave you alone?"

Not my opinion at all.

"Opinion is the best you can get some time, not all opinions can be weighed the same. You cannot weigh the opinion of a hockey coach the same as a football coach at a hockey game. Just as you cannot weigh an opinion with substatial probability the same as one where you are unsure of the probability."

Exactly why I don't trust the opinion of the paranoid who are afraid to live in a world of uncertainty and would rather mass kill other people so they can sleep at night.

"The probability that Saddam will act once he has control over WMD is high, I don't see how this could be denied."

That's as obvious as this is just your opinion. I keep hearing how Saddam is sane.

"Yet you seem to find it acceptable to ignore this probability, saying thats all I have to offer and all that matter is facts, while you offer nothing but your own opinion that Iraq should not be delt with because it would cause more harm then good? Where are your FACTS that this is the case"

I don't find it acceptable at all. I offer nothing, just like you, because I have only my opinions. The difference between us is that you are ready to kill for yours and I am not. I am not saying thaqt Iraq should not be delt with. The question is how to deal with it.

You are stuffed full of opinions that other people are going to die because of. I call that arrogance.

We are closer to sharing the same opinion then I originally thought, but your recent comments confused me. It is obvious that diplomatic solutions are not working, and have not been working with Saddam. This does not leave many options. No one wants to kill innocent Iraqi people, or put lives of soldiers at risk unless it is absolutely necessary. If we didn't care about lives, and doing things the peaceful way then we would have invaded long ago. Again this comes back to being preemptive, unfortunately in some problems you lose, or risk losing something, to gain something. It is becoming more and more apparent with Saddam's refusal to cooperate, and his continued strong drive towards obtaining WMD that he has no intentions of cooperating anytime soon.

If it is inevitable that we must forcably invade Iraq to ensure saftey in the future, would it not be better to do so sooner then later, when later it is likely that Saddam would have obtained the means to resist with more force then he currently can? That is saving lives.

This is all about saving lives, the longer we wait the more lives will be potentially lost when Iraq is eventually invaded and Saddam conquered. Not to mention the chances are higher that - in the mean time - Saddam will try even harder to obtain WMD while he prepares for the future battle. He will be able to kill even greater numbers of innocent people, in his own country, in the US, the UK, or anyone else he feels is a threat his dictatorship once he obtains them. He knows he has enemies and he wants them eliminated, his targets do not need to be military in nature to be considered a successful attack.

If a few lives must be put at risk to try and protect and ensure the lives of many more people that could have possibly been killed, then shouldn't that chance be taken? Isn't that the entire basis of police forces, and armies created since the beginning of mankind? Of course there have always been those out on the offensive, but for every offensive force there must be at least one defensive force, gathered in hopes that they can protect themselves. If they were smart they met the enemy head on outside of their villages, away from the women and children, instead of cowering in their homes hoping that the invading force didn't catch them off guard and kill innocent people. While not exactly the same scenario... Iraq isn't invading us, but they are a hostile force which needs to be confronted before they catch us off guard.

 

[ElFenix]

i was actually pointing out that freud thought there was only love, but later found that agression was also a primary human trait

 

[Moonbeam]

ELFenix: i was actually pointing out that freud thought there was only love, but later found that agression was also a primary human trait
---------------

Oh.
--------------------

Judgment:

"We are closer to sharing the same opinion then I originally thought, but your recent comments confused me."

Yup, we are.

"It is obvious that diplomatic solutions are not working, and have not been working with Saddam."

Not totally true, I don't think.

"This does not leave many options."

You are telling me!

"No one wants to kill innocent Iraqi people, or put lives of soldiers at risk unless it is absolutely necessary."

Exactly.

"If we didn't care about lives, and doing things the peaceful way then we would have invaded long ago. Again this comes back to being preemptive, unfortunately in some problems you lose, or risk losing something, to gain something."

True, I think. This is our tradition which we are about to change.

"It is becoming more and more apparent with Saddam's refusal to cooperate,"

I disagree, I think cooperation is increasing.

"and his continued strong drive towards obtaining WMD that he has no intentions of cooperating anytime soon."

I need evidence and an understnding of motivation. We do the same and spend more than the rest of the whole world on the military.

"If it is inevitable that we must forcably invade Iraq to ensure saftey in the future, would it not be better to do so sooner then later, when later it is likely that Saddam would have obtained the means to resist with more force then he currently can?"

If if if

"That is saving lives. This is all about saving lives, the longer we wait the more lives will be potentially lost when Iraq is eventually invaded and Saddam conquered."

I don't think so. It may be for you, but for the administration I think it's about a new American imperialism.

"Not to mention the chances are higher that - in the mean time - Saddam will try even harder to obtain WMD while he prepares for the future battle."

Likely but that doesn't necessarily substancially increase the threat. Lots of unknowns.

"He will be able to kill even greater numbers of innocent people, in his own country, in the US, the UK, or anyone else he feels is a threat his dictatorship once he obtains them."

Again a conjecture, but if true, but also an argument not to corner him.

"He knows he has enemies and he wants them eliminated, his targets do not need to be military in nature to be considered a successful attack."

?

"If a few lives must be put at risk to try and protect and ensure the lives of many more people that could have possibly been killed, then shouldn't that chance be taken?"

That's the question, NO. What if not. We don't want to do evil in the name of good.

"Isn't that the entire basis of police forces, and armies created since the beginning of mankind?"

Yes and look at the result.

"Of course there have always been those out on the offensive, but for every offensive force there must be at least one defensive force, gathered in hopes that they can protect themselves."

Hope springs eternal and for good reason.

"If they were smart they met the enemy head on outside of their villages, away from the women and children, instead of cowering in their homes hoping that the invading force didn't catch them off guard and kill innocent people. While not exactly the same scenario... Iraq isn't invading us, but they are a hostile force which needs to be confronted before they catch us off guard."

Say what? I don't get this.