I don't think I am more deserving of life than they are, however, I do accept that casualties will occur in war. If you're waging war for reasons other than conquest (and let's assume we are, since that would be a completely different argument), you have to weigh the gains of military action against the losses. In my opinion, the loss of life we have seen/will see will still be counteracted by a gain in freedom, a reduction in lives lost under Saddam and an increase in security for the area. We aren't seeing that now, but I think demanding immediate results is only asking for failure. Unfortunately, immediate, lossless results are demanded by some in our society and there are plenty who will politicize the casualties, not for the sake of life but for their own gain.
They refused them exodus in the days/weeks before the city invasion...not in the year and half since we've been there. Overlooking that, I'm content with saying it was only the women and children that were being held hostage to prove my point.
so your opinion doesn't really count for shit, does it?
Well, neither does yours, so at least we're on the same footing. But that's part of the beauty of newsgroup-esque discussion, and in that vein, shut your pie hole.
Are you actually trying to compare reality to some arbitrary estimate of future events which, by any measure, cannot possibly be guaranteed?
Should we not look back at history and make a few predictions? Why bother to even learn history, then. Why not just have kneejerk, illinformed reactions to every world event?
There will ALWAYS be a group of people that will disagree with any action being taken. Ever notice that >70% in any poll is considered a landslide? You can pretty much count on 10-15% of any population disagreeing with even the most palatable plan. We're aiming for the greatest good here, and you're welcome to disagree with me on what that is.
1. Join the Army 2. Acquire assault rifle 3. Shoot people who are terrorizing and holding hostage civilians in their own city 4. Put down rifle, assist in peacekeeping, reestablishing infrastructure, helping to rebuild 5. Ask "Are you happier?"
Maybe you can't imagine infantry that do nothing but kil kill kill, but I fortunately can.
I have to use this example so many times that it's trite, but look at Hitler and WWII. I find it difficult that anyone could argue walking into Germany in the 1930's and capping Hitler *wouldn't* have been a bad thing. However, many of the citizens of Germany wouldn't have just accepted an overthrow of their government and leader, so it would have taken a military action. Civilians would have died, just like they are now. But millions of Jews *wouldn't* have died.
While I don't think Saddam was necessariliy a Hitler and I can't predict how many Jews/Arabs would have died had he remained in power, my point is that preemption isn't always a bad thing. Someone else in this thread has already said that we saved thousands of other peoples' lives by doing this, and I wholeheartedly agree.
Look at it as an anticipated net gain of life. Removal of a crazed dictator is a bonus, in my eyes.
You can't fight as guerilla fighters without being local or having support of the locals.
Actually, you can. You can be much, much better equipped than the locals, thus overwhelming them with firepower.
Ofcourse, I don't have a link to back me up, but my understanding over the course of the Iraq war has been that since the beginning of our invasion, people started streaming over the Iraqi border from Syria et al. Kerry complained about it during the election, saying that bush failed to secure the borders. These people brought arms with them and set up shop in Fallujah and other cities across Iraq.
Even some of the MSM has been covering the fact that the locals in Fallujah were getting pretty tired of having foreign insurgents in their city, essentially holding them hostage. Here's a WaPo article from today, talking about how the local insurgents are turning against the foreign insurgents.
While it certainly helps to have local support, it's not necessary. Unarmed civilians don't really stand a chance against groups with guns.
One buddy (same group as I referred to in Risk) now refuses to ever play Diplomacy again. He lost it and destroyed multiple CD cases and half the damn board when we gang raped his Turkish ass.
Stratego was also good because it didn't seem to cultivate the hatred among my friends that Risk did. We've ended marathon Risk games in fistfights, comparing each other to Hitler and Stalin. We may take it a little too seriously.
How does this get +1:Insightful? Now, +1:Funny I was expecting, but Insightful?
If you want to win some more votes, stop alienating people, stop calling the president horrible names or stupid euphemisms (Moore, I'm looking right at YOU) every chance you get, and drop the intellectual superiority schtick. We have DIFFERENT, not worse, ideologies...and a year ago many of us broke away and wanted to vote against Bush, but felt alienated and belittled by Democrats who didn't want to represent us, but wanted to be everything Bush was not.
Finally, drop the conspiracy theories. "The Conservative media" is a farce, and insinuating we all take marching orders from Karl Rove is proposterous.
>The electoral college assures that each candidate will visit every state, not just the ones needed to win.
But they don't. At all.
Okay, while technically you're correct, you're missing the underlying point of why they don't visit those other states. They already DO represent that states' interests, ergo why the state is voting for the candidate.
So someone in Alaska's vote matters more than someone's in New York? If a state only has 1 million people, their vote is more valuable than a state that has 10 million.
Technically, yes, someone's vote in Alaska is worth more than someone in New York. However, along with being technically worth more, it's also technically worth less because the state as a whole is worth less. An Alaskan vote is worth "more" than an Ohioan vote, yet which state did the candidates visit more?
If we went to a 1 person, 1 vote system, not only would smaller states be forgotton, but so would the interests of non-city dwellers. Why worry about farmers when there are millions of people living in cities? You would see the most goddam progressive president ever, if this happened, because people living in cities tend to be more progressive/liberal. Conservatives living in rural or suburban areas would be essentially screwed.
Actually, wouldn't voting for Peroutka send that message a little better? Is he on the ballot in Mass.? I just read his stance on issues, he makes Bush look like a flaming liberal.
No, the poll represents the number of disgruntled people that are out there voting. Think about it...when things are dandy, how many people go out looking for places to express their approval? It's the same in any situation...work, politics, economics...when people are pissed they express their opinions, most everyone else stays at home and is content.
I went to TJ (class of '96), and I can remember the whole calculator thing but we never had it as a mascot. We were required to all have TI-82s, which was an unheard of requirement for a high school. When I bought my first one, the lady behind the counter was amazed I was going into high school an not college calculus.
They were fun to program, though. Didn't really get good until you had the key checks in the TI-83/85, but I still remember Tim's multitasking program...actually worked to time slice up to three different programs.
Would that I had mod points, but I've already posted a practical carbon copy of your post in this thread, so I might as well respond...
This is insane. An article including "Make sure you vote next week" after quoting a figure that is 3-10 times greater than other estimates on deaths in Iraq. I won't go into the fact that it's from a medical journal or that it's being posted days before the election, suffice to say that the article's text is ridiculous on its own merit.
Can I mod the article as -1:Troll? "Make sure you vote next week?" Let's skip all the rigamaroll...just post at the end of every politics article "And remember...we don't like Bush, we like Kerry!".
I'm pissed when I get modded down for any of my pro-Bush comments, but this is just blatant bias in the text of an article. A little more objectivity wouldn't hurt here.
Personally I belive that we could quench the flow of terrorism a lot if we could deal with sucky economies in other countries and get Saudi Arabia to end the welfare-state additude common there.
I absolutely agree. However, how do you propose we do this when all money flowing into or out of a country goes through a single, corrupt, dictatorial ruler? Or, rather(since I suppose each dinar didn't cross Hussein's hand), the money flow is directly controlled by him? It can't be done. That's one of the problems with sending oodles of money to Africa right now; no enforcable way to make sure it gets where it should go.
Economic resolutions need to start at the root, and that root is the leadership of a given area. If the leadership is corrupt, there's no chance for economic reform.
By "Constitution", you must mean the Defense of Marriage Act, because the Constitution says absolutely nothing about marriage. The DoMA, on the other hand, does explicitly define the rights of states; states don't have to accept the legal marriage of gays from one state to another.
The problem with this is that Article 4, Section 1 of the Constitution (Full Faith and Credit) states, basically, that all public "Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings" in one state convey to all others. When Bush mentions activist judges, he's referring to judges that could overturn the DoMA or rule it unconstitutional. Making what DoMA says part of the Constitution is the only way that couldn't happen.
Is it fair to the teacher in a developing country who gets less than US$50 a month in salary?
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that if the teacher is making $50/month, or living in a developing country, their students are in need of less sophistication than MS products deliver. I'm thinking paper/pens are a fine substitute in said case.
I think you're thinking of countries like Palenstine and N. Korea, essentially countries that don't view us favorably. Iran came out in support of Bush and his spokesman said something along the lines of, "Uh, no thanks." Having a country we oppose favor you, in theory, is bad. In reality, it probably just doesn't matter, other than for making good partisan rhetoric.
Here I harken back to "What the fuck were the questions asked?" Unless those are released, these surveys mean nothing. I can ask someone "Did Saddam ever have relations with any Al Qaeda operatives or offer them assistance?" When over half the Bush supporting population says "Yeah, ofcourse, the 9/11 report said that, as a matter of fact", I can truncate that to "Yes" and then claim that "Bush supporters think Al Qaeda and Saddam were in cahoots!"
It's shoddy reporting with statistics. You tell me the questions, the answers, who you polled and what your motives were and then I'll think about taking your word over others.
Or the problem could be that the facts really aren't facts, they're "facts". Half truths and deceptions, in some cases. While the facts don't favor a candidate, the "facts" certainly do. Go read a few sections of The Truth About Iraq, and see if any facts pop out at you as being in direct opposition to the "facts".
To cite a personal example, my buddy's wife is voting for Kerry because she insists that he's "for education" (she's a teacher). Citing NCLB numbers doesn't seem to mean anything to her.
My point is, plenty of people voting for their candidate are ill-informed. I have noticed that my liberal friends have an air of moral and cranial superiority, that I must be a redneck hick or a bigot in order to support my "moron candidate". It does, truly, amaze me.
As another Bush supporter, I don't think we'll be "allowed" to see, by the MSM, anything good happening in Iraq until after the election. The MSM likes to cite casualties and car bombings, yet you read sites like Truth About Iraq and it's almost a bright future. Which one is correct? Probably both, they just list different factoids.
Did they go over their polling methods? What questions they asked? You can slant results aplenty by just asking misleading or pointed questions. Lemme see the questions, then I'll believe their data.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think I am more deserving of life than they are, however, I do accept that casualties will occur in war. If you're waging war for reasons other than conquest (and let's assume we are, since that would be a completely different argument), you have to weigh the gains of military action against the losses. In my opinion, the loss of life we have seen/will see will still be counteracted by a gain in freedom, a reduction in lives lost under Saddam and an increase in security for the area. We aren't seeing that now, but I think demanding immediate results is only asking for failure. Unfortunately, immediate, lossless results are demanded by some in our society and there are plenty who will politicize the casualties, not for the sake of life but for their own gain.
--trb
They refused them exodus in the days/weeks before the city invasion...not in the year and half since we've been there. Overlooking that, I'm content with saying it was only the women and children that were being held hostage to prove my point.
--trb
so your opinion doesn't really count for shit, does it?
Well, neither does yours, so at least we're on the same footing. But that's part of the beauty of newsgroup-esque discussion, and in that vein, shut your pie hole.
Are you actually trying to compare reality to some arbitrary estimate of future events which, by any measure, cannot possibly be guaranteed?
Should we not look back at history and make a few predictions? Why bother to even learn history, then. Why not just have kneejerk, illinformed reactions to every world event?
There will ALWAYS be a group of people that will disagree with any action being taken. Ever notice that >70% in any poll is considered a landslide? You can pretty much count on 10-15% of any population disagreeing with even the most palatable plan. We're aiming for the greatest good here, and you're welcome to disagree with me on what that is.
--trb
Or maybe...
1. Join the Army
2. Acquire assault rifle
3. Shoot people who are terrorizing and holding hostage civilians in their own city
4. Put down rifle, assist in peacekeeping, reestablishing infrastructure, helping to rebuild
5. Ask "Are you happier?"
Maybe you can't imagine infantry that do nothing but kil kill kill, but I fortunately can.
--trb
I have to use this example so many times that it's trite, but look at Hitler and WWII. I find it difficult that anyone could argue walking into Germany in the 1930's and capping Hitler *wouldn't* have been a bad thing. However, many of the citizens of Germany wouldn't have just accepted an overthrow of their government and leader, so it would have taken a military action. Civilians would have died, just like they are now. But millions of Jews *wouldn't* have died.
While I don't think Saddam was necessariliy a Hitler and I can't predict how many Jews/Arabs would have died had he remained in power, my point is that preemption isn't always a bad thing. Someone else in this thread has already said that we saved thousands of other peoples' lives by doing this, and I wholeheartedly agree.
Look at it as an anticipated net gain of life. Removal of a crazed dictator is a bonus, in my eyes.
--trb
You can't fight as guerilla fighters without being local or having support of the locals.
Actually, you can. You can be much, much better equipped than the locals, thus overwhelming them with firepower.
Ofcourse, I don't have a link to back me up, but my understanding over the course of the Iraq war has been that since the beginning of our invasion, people started streaming over the Iraqi border from Syria et al. Kerry complained about it during the election, saying that bush failed to secure the borders. These people brought arms with them and set up shop in Fallujah and other cities across Iraq.
Even some of the MSM has been covering the fact that the locals in Fallujah were getting pretty tired of having foreign insurgents in their city, essentially holding them hostage. Here's a WaPo article from today, talking about how the local insurgents are turning against the foreign insurgents.
While it certainly helps to have local support, it's not necessary. Unarmed civilians don't really stand a chance against groups with guns.
--trb
One buddy (same group as I referred to in Risk) now refuses to ever play Diplomacy again. He lost it and destroyed multiple CD cases and half the damn board when we gang raped his Turkish ass.
--trb
Stratego was also good because it didn't seem to cultivate the hatred among my friends that Risk did. We've ended marathon Risk games in fistfights, comparing each other to Hitler and Stalin. We may take it a little too seriously.
--trb
How does this get +1:Insightful? Now, +1:Funny I was expecting, but Insightful?
If you want to win some more votes, stop alienating people, stop calling the president horrible names or stupid euphemisms (Moore, I'm looking right at YOU) every chance you get, and drop the intellectual superiority schtick. We have DIFFERENT, not worse, ideologies...and a year ago many of us broke away and wanted to vote against Bush, but felt alienated and belittled by Democrats who didn't want to represent us, but wanted to be everything Bush was not.
Finally, drop the conspiracy theories. "The Conservative media" is a farce, and insinuating we all take marching orders from Karl Rove is proposterous.
--trb
>The electoral college assures that each candidate will visit every state, not just the ones needed to win.
But they don't. At all.
Okay, while technically you're correct, you're missing the underlying point of why they don't visit those other states. They already DO represent that states' interests, ergo why the state is voting for the candidate.
So someone in Alaska's vote matters more than someone's in New York? If a state only has 1 million people, their vote is more valuable than a state that has 10 million.
Technically, yes, someone's vote in Alaska is worth more than someone in New York. However, along with being technically worth more, it's also technically worth less because the state as a whole is worth less. An Alaskan vote is worth "more" than an Ohioan vote, yet which state did the candidates visit more?
If we went to a 1 person, 1 vote system, not only would smaller states be forgotton, but so would the interests of non-city dwellers. Why worry about farmers when there are millions of people living in cities? You would see the most goddam progressive president ever, if this happened, because people living in cities tend to be more progressive/liberal. Conservatives living in rural or suburban areas would be essentially screwed.
--trb
Nope, I'm the trb that took the moniker from a bbs name way long ago (The Red Baron). Been shortened to trb for a long time.
--trb
Actually, wouldn't voting for Peroutka send that message a little better? Is he on the ballot in Mass.? I just read his stance on issues, he makes Bush look like a flaming liberal.
--trb
No, the poll represents the number of disgruntled people that are out there voting. Think about it...when things are dandy, how many people go out looking for places to express their approval? It's the same in any situation...work, politics, economics...when people are pissed they express their opinions, most everyone else stays at home and is content.
--trb
I went to TJ (class of '96), and I can remember the whole calculator thing but we never had it as a mascot. We were required to all have TI-82s, which was an unheard of requirement for a high school. When I bought my first one, the lady behind the counter was amazed I was going into high school an not college calculus.
They were fun to program, though. Didn't really get good until you had the key checks in the TI-83/85, but I still remember Tim's multitasking program...actually worked to time slice up to three different programs.
--trb
Would that I had mod points, but I've already posted a practical carbon copy of your post in this thread, so I might as well respond...
This is insane. An article including "Make sure you vote next week" after quoting a figure that is 3-10 times greater than other estimates on deaths in Iraq. I won't go into the fact that it's from a medical journal or that it's being posted days before the election, suffice to say that the article's text is ridiculous on its own merit.
--trb
Can I mod the article as -1:Troll? "Make sure you vote next week?" Let's skip all the rigamaroll...just post at the end of every politics article "And remember...we don't like Bush, we like Kerry!".
I'm pissed when I get modded down for any of my pro-Bush comments, but this is just blatant bias in the text of an article. A little more objectivity wouldn't hurt here.
--trb
Personally I belive that we could quench the flow of terrorism a lot if we could deal with sucky economies in other countries and get Saudi Arabia to end the welfare-state additude common there.
I absolutely agree. However, how do you propose we do this when all money flowing into or out of a country goes through a single, corrupt, dictatorial ruler? Or, rather(since I suppose each dinar didn't cross Hussein's hand), the money flow is directly controlled by him? It can't be done. That's one of the problems with sending oodles of money to Africa right now; no enforcable way to make sure it gets where it should go.
Economic resolutions need to start at the root, and that root is the leadership of a given area. If the leadership is corrupt, there's no chance for economic reform.
--trb
By "Constitution", you must mean the Defense of Marriage Act, because the Constitution says absolutely nothing about marriage. The DoMA, on the other hand, does explicitly define the rights of states; states don't have to accept the legal marriage of gays from one state to another.
The problem with this is that Article 4, Section 1 of the Constitution (Full Faith and Credit) states, basically, that all public "Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings" in one state convey to all others. When Bush mentions activist judges, he's referring to judges that could overturn the DoMA or rule it unconstitutional. Making what DoMA says part of the Constitution is the only way that couldn't happen.
--trb
Is it fair to the teacher in a developing country who gets less than US$50 a month in salary?
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that if the teacher is making $50/month, or living in a developing country, their students are in need of less sophistication than MS products deliver. I'm thinking paper/pens are a fine substitute in said case.
--trb
I think you're thinking of countries like Palenstine and N. Korea, essentially countries that don't view us favorably. Iran came out in support of Bush and his spokesman said something along the lines of, "Uh, no thanks." Having a country we oppose favor you, in theory, is bad. In reality, it probably just doesn't matter, other than for making good partisan rhetoric.
--trb
Here I harken back to "What the fuck were the questions asked?" Unless those are released, these surveys mean nothing. I can ask someone "Did Saddam ever have relations with any Al Qaeda operatives or offer them assistance?" When over half the Bush supporting population says "Yeah, ofcourse, the 9/11 report said that, as a matter of fact", I can truncate that to "Yes" and then claim that "Bush supporters think Al Qaeda and Saddam were in cahoots!"
It's shoddy reporting with statistics. You tell me the questions, the answers, who you polled and what your motives were and then I'll think about taking your word over others.
--trb
Or the problem could be that the facts really aren't facts, they're "facts". Half truths and deceptions, in some cases. While the facts don't favor a candidate, the "facts" certainly do. Go read a few sections of The Truth About Iraq, and see if any facts pop out at you as being in direct opposition to the "facts".
--trb
To cite a personal example, my buddy's wife is voting for Kerry because she insists that he's "for education" (she's a teacher). Citing NCLB numbers doesn't seem to mean anything to her.
My point is, plenty of people voting for their candidate are ill-informed. I have noticed that my liberal friends have an air of moral and cranial superiority, that I must be a redneck hick or a bigot in order to support my "moron candidate". It does, truly, amaze me.
--trb
As another Bush supporter, I don't think we'll be "allowed" to see, by the MSM, anything good happening in Iraq until after the election. The MSM likes to cite casualties and car bombings, yet you read sites like Truth About Iraq and it's almost a bright future. Which one is correct? Probably both, they just list different factoids.
--trb
Did they go over their polling methods? What questions they asked? You can slant results aplenty by just asking misleading or pointed questions. Lemme see the questions, then I'll believe their data.
--trb