View Single Post
Old 10-04-2007, 12:57 AM   #47
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
Erm.... Here is your original quote:
<snip>
Since that was following up on something I had said previously, I'm not sure who else you would have been talking about....
The statement that I made to you was:
I'm not sure how one condones collateral damage while snubbing torture.

...after you had said:
Oh, yea, Achilles. That totally compares to taking people who are KNOWN to be civilians and torturing them and killing them brutally. Yea.

So at no point did I say that you did, however I have been waiting for you to clarify your statement for over a week.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
What was your argument? As I recall, you made a point of the fact that we drop bombs on civilians - after I had talked about terrorists torturing Americans - and intimated that one was no better than the other. Frankly, I think that it does address your argument.
My argument was that I'm not sure how one condones collateral damage while snubbing torture. If you're not telling me that you don't, then that's fine, however that would appear to contradict the tone of your earlier statement.

snipped reference to deleted material

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
We had evidence, enough evidence that there was a noticeable danger. And, think about it, would you trust Saddam if he said "no"? Or perhaps if you made him promise?

On a serious note, I wouldn't trust Saddam. And just tell me, kind sir, what should we have done? Decided to wait and just hope that he didn't drop an nuclear bomb on us?
snipped
No, we didn't have evidence. In fact, we had an operative go the the country where Saddam allegedly bought the nuclear materials that came back and said that there was nothing. We had U.N. weapons inspectors in the country looking where the intelligence told them the weapons were and saying there was nothing. So, no, we didn't have any evidence.

And since your argument seems to be built entirely upon Saddam having a bomb (which we now know for certain he did not) then it would seem that the your reasoning falls flat.

But to be a good sport, I'll answer your questions anyway:

No, I wouldn't have trusted Saddam. Neither did we, that's why we sent weapons inspectors there to look for themselves.

We should have done, precisely what we did do: Try to see if he had a bomb.

Yes, if there had been evidence that he had a bomb, then we should have acted. Whether or not that action should have been invasion is another story.

I hope that helps.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
You asked why we were not in Afghanistan
Really? When did I ask that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
to which I replied "we were." I talked about the Iraq connection just below:
No, I caught that, I'm just waiting for something from a credible source (i.e. not an neo-con think tank that helped to orchestrate the invasion of Iraq)

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
BTW, I'm not understanding how what you said seemingly discredits this. You go from (1) the Weekly Standard, to (2) the founder Bill Kristol, (3) to something else he did - the PNAC - (4) and then a "suggestion" made by the PNAC. What in the world does that have to do with the evidence?
It shows that the "evidence" isn't evidence. It's like calling a bank after you find out there's been a robbery and then believing the robber when he answers the phone and tells you that everything's fine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
Are you trying to bash Kristol, the Weekly Standard, or the PNAC......or the info?
E) All of the above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
I could make a similar response to your idea of watching No End in Sight, but I don't usually discredit info by bashing the person who created the movie; and drawing references to other things done by that person.
It's called questioning sources and identifying potential sources of bias. It's key to critical thinking. snipped
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
Oh, and what are you intimating by the line about the PNAC's "suggestion"?
That the members of the PNAC probably squealed like small children on christmas morning on September 11, 2001.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
Because in your opinion, you don't think its credible?
That's one way to put it. You're free to present a counter-argument if you don't agree with my thinking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
Oh, and just an FYI, I would venture that the article itself was a little well spun. Which is what I was showing.
It's entirely possible, but your accusation is not going to persuade me. You'll actually need to provide some sort of evidence that should cause a reasonable person to question the validity of the information presented (i.e. flawed methodologies in the data collection, etc). Kinda like what I did when I pointed out that your source is the mouth piece of a neo-con think tank.

snipped off topic discusson

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
The only part that I quoted....
snipped
All you offered was "What?" so I'm not sure which part you need help with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
Ok. Now perhaps you could explain to me again how actual footage can never lie.
Was this a counter-argument to something? This seems very out of context for the section you quoted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
You don't get to be a leader by having people "decide" that you are a leader. You take a stand and prove, and not really to those people, that you are a leader.
By doing things that are worthy of a leader?
In fairness, I think I might see the source of the division in our thinking. I would like the U.S. to be a good example of leadership for the world, aka a role model of other nations. It would seem though that you just want to U.S. to be in charge regardless of how we're viewed or how we get there.

Yes, you can lead by fear and intimidation, but that only goes so far for so long and usually there are consequences. Not how I prefer to do business.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
Just showing where America stands among the world.
King of the hill...for now. Yay for us.

snipped responses to deleted material

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
Pulling troops back to American soil doesn't protect us from terrorist attacks. I don't think that they would have a better chance stopping suicide bombers on our own ground than they would going out and taking them down.
Of course it does. If the terrorists come here, we've got troops here to defend the citizens that are here. Armed guys in uniforms at the airports. Fighter pilots ready to scramble. National Guard guys at large public events to help act as security.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
A "moral price"? So we pay the price because they fight dirty and we can't distinguish who's who. Right. What would you suggest we do?
Right, like when you realize that the bombs that you drop may have killed innocent civilians. Our guys have to live with that. And we have to live with the reputation that sort of action earns us around the world.

I would suggest that we follow the instructions of the Framers and the Constitution and avoid foreign entanglements. As I have been trying to point out in this thread, foreign entanglements is how this situation got started in the first place (via our support of our allies in the early 20th century and again via our direct actions during the 70's-90's).

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
Yes, those men and women are taking the brunt of it. Even from inside America, because they get slammed when they commit "immoral" acts.
Who's "slamming" them?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
It's smart and necessary to strap bombs to you and blow up American soldiers?
If you're a small guerrilla force trying to fight off a militarily superior occupying army? Sure. I don't like it and I don't condone it, but as you keep pointing out, war is hell.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
No. I'm sorry, but I don't agree
Which part? The holy land part? Don't take my word for, Osama bin Laden will tell you himself. He's been trying to tell us for more than a decade.

The blowback part? It only stands to reason. You're more than welcome to present a counter-argument if you don't agree with my thinking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
Tell me how we evil American's started this, could you?
The condensed version is that we stationed troops in Saudi Arabia, which is where Mecca is (you know, the place that all muslims face when they pray 5 times per day). It also happens to be where Medina is. These two places are considered sacred and that infidels are occupying these lands really, really pissed off devout muslims (aka fundies, aka islamic extremists). So Osama bin Laden decided that the king was now in bed with the devil (figuratively, but maybe literally too) and that action must be taken against said infidels (aka us). When he didn't get our attention with the embassy bombing in Africa, the barracks bombing in Saudi Arabia, the first attack on the world trade center, or the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen, he decided to set is aims higher.

And of course he was able to utilize his military and intelligence training that he recieved from us to carry this all out. Talk about full circle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
It sounds like we need to completely eradicate them, don't we? Oh, and most of these people attacked us, by blowing up civilians who never did anything to them. Tell me how that backs your claim up.

If they're all broken up about it, maybe they shouldn't blow up skyscrapers and kill thousands of innocent Americans. If they want to keep doing it, though, keep 'em coming. It's just too bad that these dirty bastards have to take innocent people with them in their claim to glory.
snipped

Wow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
Yes, we shouldn't kill terrorists because if we kill them, we make the world more dangerous!
Yes, that sounds exactly like what I said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
So obviously we should just leave them alone no matter what they do! LOL!
Not an extreme I'm willing to adopt, but it's a free country and you're welcome to your opinion. snipped

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
Well, it is of course our fault. We shouldn't go drop bombs on terrorists because it might make other terrorists from the deaths.
Within reason, yes, that's precisely the argument that I am making.

snipped response to deleted material

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
But it was not a guerilla war. Just like dropping an A-Bomb on Hiroshima did not make WW2 a nuclear war. It may have occured, but the primary fighting was done on battlefields. Little side encounters by various groups is not usually referred to to describe a war.
And splitting hairs wins you what?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
No, they don't. Suicide bombers, however do. It isn't usual of a guerilla group to use suicidal tactics - it's a guerilla group, it is almost contradictory.
It seems to me that there is either conventional warfare or unconventional warfare. Since unconvential warfare is almost the exact definition of "guerrilla warfare", I'm not sure what you're hoping to prove here.

Thanks for reading.

Last edited by Jae Onasi; 10-04-2007 at 04:09 PM. Reason: snipped inflammatory/baiting quotes and comments
Achilles is offline   you may: