Changing My Mind About Iran - And More On The USA - Page 4

Copernicus · #31 09-29-2007, 06:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you have the right ideas OP but sadly its a cold harsh world out there. imagine all the money that would go directly into financing terrorism against us if we left iraq

[/ QUOTE ]
Imagine all the people who wouldn't become terrorists because their family wasn't blown up by an American bomb...

[/ QUOTE ]

Imagine all the people who wont become terrorists because their father was killed before he could teach him to strap on a bomb.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol.... are you serious or is this a lvl?

That is a really uninformed way of trying to justify military action in the Middle East. Do you REALLY think its these kids' fathers that are teaching them to strap on bomb's to their vests? that is absolutely true in many cases Any non-lunatic father is obviously not going to choose his son to commit suicide bombings (cause he loves him, obv). thats not at all obvious in a society that values martyrdom Terrorist organizations most certainly in most cases pick the weakest, naivest and stupidest of their recruits to strap on a bomb. that doesnt preclude others from doing the same A likely reason that naive/weak/moron is probably in that position in the first place is because he had poor guidance growing up(eg, no dad).

[/ QUOTE ]

you really have no clue as to the motivation of religious fundamentalists.

[/ QUOTE ]

didn't realize i was talking to an expert. Care to direct me to the Ann Coulter book you read?

look, i dont want to be patronizing here, but I think you completely miss the hole in your argument. EVEN IF fathers were all nuts and strapping bombs to their son's chests, killing the father doesn't alleviate the problem. You have created a wound in that family, and you can sure bet that the son will be able to find some other bozo terrorist who will go ahead and teach him anyway. there is no requisite paternal knowledge here to conduct a suicide bombing, in other words.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didnt know you had conducted psychiatric studies and assessed the reactions of all children to trauma. I didnt realize that no kid who saw their criminal father killed by police ever became a policeman because he saw the damage that criminals do to their families.

Without the sarcasm...you dont know, you cant possibly know, and to claim you know is ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

so in one post you chastise me for not knowing the raw motives of religion fundamentalists, and in the next try to analogize religious fanatics and/or arab nationalists with US domestic crime? woah

obviously i haven't conducted studies to find a determinative answer; thats why we are both on this forum debating on this, obviously. I am simply arguing that my view has something yours doesnt: common sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

it makes every bit as much sense as yours, you just wont take off the blinders to see it. There is NO QUESTION that the reaction of SOME children will be to rebell against the root cause of their fathers death...their own actions. And that has been studied and confirmed, not in the case of terrorsists, but in the case of children of those killed in criminal acts.

[/ QUOTE ]

fatal flaw in the analogy again: comparing a killing done by a domestic, locally accountable police force and that done by a foreign entity. no, its not a fatal flaw. The essence of both situations is that it is the actions of the FATHER that led to his death. In many levels of society here the "locally accountable police force" is seen as an enemy force. 

furthermore, the question is not whether SOME children of killed fathers "rebel" against their father's terrorist motives, but whether that SOME is greater than the SOME that are heartbroken that a foreign entity killed their father. no, you are again attempting to narrowit beyond what I said. It is whether the total impact of our strategy results in more or less terrorists in the future. and the answer is WE DONT KNOW

Look, I'm not against taking terrorists out. My politics are actually quite hawkish. I just think your logic here is flawed.

[/ QUOTE ] not in the least, and you havent demonstrated it to be. My logic leads to the conclusion that WE DONT KNOW. If you can demonstrate somehow that we can quantify the effects, feel free to do so.

kniper · #32 09-29-2007, 07:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I find an interesting dilemma in the new makeup of the Supreme Court. The two additional conservative justices to the Court may help follow up further on Rhenquist's shrinking the scope of the Commerce Clause (though I am unsure how far they will get b/c they replaced conservative justices Rhenquist and O'Connor). But these same guys are also likely to reduce the privacy protections granted by substantive due process in the 60s and 70s (e.g., abortion).

I just wish "conservatives" who believe in small government would realize the hypocrisy in fighting against government regulation and involvement in business but at the same time advocating government regulation and involvement in personal/private affairs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's extremely unlikely that we see any substantial narrowing of the interpretation of the Commerce Clause. Overturning a very old precedent that most of our modern government is built on without any substantial popular dissatisfaction with that precedent is virtually unthinkable.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Rhenquist court did just that in the 90's. There was a federal law that made it illegal to carry a firearm within x amount of feet of a school anywhere in the US. Naturally these kind of crime bills were silly and near meaningless, but were popular with legislators since it made them appear tough on crime. Also seems highly unlikely that there would be a significant voice against such a law (besides NRA obv, which opposes anything to do with gun regulation).

Anyway the law was cruxed on the use of the Commerce Clause, and the Court struck it down on the basis that this had no real rational relationship to interstate commerce, despite "Congressional findings" on the matter. So yeah, I think it can happen. *fingers crossed*

kniper · #33 09-29-2007, 07:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Without the sarcasm...you dont know, you cant possibly know, and to claim you know is ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

so in one post you chastise me for not knowing the raw motives of religion fundamentalists, and in the next try to analogize religious fanatics and/or arab nationalists with US domestic crime? woah

obviously i haven't conducted studies to find a determinative answer; thats why we are both on this forum debating on this, obviously. I am simply arguing that my view has something yours doesnt: common sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

it makes every bit as much sense as yours, you just wont take off the blinders to see it. There is NO QUESTION that the reaction of SOME children will be to rebell against the root cause of their fathers death...their own actions. And that has been studied and confirmed, not in the case of terrorsists, but in the case of children of those killed in criminal acts.

[/ QUOTE ]

fatal flaw in the analogy again: comparing a killing done by a domestic, locally accountable police force and that done by a foreign entity. no, its not a fatal flaw. The essence of both situations is that it is the actions of the FATHER that led to his death. In many levels of society here the "locally accountable police force" is seen as an enemy force. 

furthermore, the question is not whether SOME children of killed fathers "rebel" against their father's terrorist motives, but whether that SOME is greater than the SOME that are heartbroken that a foreign entity killed their father. no, you are again attempting to narrowit beyond what I said. It is whether the total impact of our strategy results in more or less terrorists in the future. and the answer is WE DONT KNOW

Look, I'm not against taking terrorists out. My politics are actually quite hawkish. I just think your logic here is flawed.

[/ QUOTE ] not in the least, and you havent demonstrated it to be. My logic leads to the conclusion that WE DONT KNOW. If you can demonstrate somehow that we can quantify the effects, feel free to do so. 

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, this is going to be my last post in this, I'll read any response you have but I can see I'm not really getting anywhere with you.

FATAL FLAW IN YOUR ANALOGY
1. "no, its not a fatal flaw. The essence of both situations is that it is the actions of the FATHER that led to his death." The fact that there is a basic theme between two comparisons (here, the police killing a criminal and army killing a terrorist, both of whom have children) doesn't touch on there being a fatal flaw. The whole point of a fatal flaw is that it is a giant hole in an otherwise palatable analogy. If your analogy didn't have a basic theme it wouldn't have a fatal flaw, it just wouldn't make sense.

2. "In many levels of society here the "locally accountable police force" is seen as an enemy force." I think you might have meant this is why your analogy doesn't have a fatal flaw instead of what I characterized in (1). This is a pretty generalized statement. We have all listened to a few NWA jams and all, but I would be highly skeptical on the number of areas in the US where they whole-heartedly believed the "locally accountable police force" to be an enemy force. Those are very strong words. For instance, there are statistics that somewhere in the region of 60% of Iraqis think attacks on American troops are justified. Find me a neighborhood in the US with statistics even approaching this number as against the local police force and MAYBE you have an argument. But it is still flawed because there is a huge difference between a police force that has been characterized as unfairly mistreating its citizens and an entire invasion by persons who practice a heretical form of religion. I'm sorry -- we all make bad analogies from time to time, and sometimes you just have to admit that you didn't think this one through entirely.

As an aside, I'm glad your argument has changed from the suggestion that such strategy DOES work to WE DO NOT KNOW if it works. But as a concluding thought, do you really think there are going to be positive affects by systematically killing people we suspect as terrorists in a place as murky as Iraq? Even all generals out there concede that places like Iraq need a political, not military solution. We are just two bozos on the Internets. I'll take their word for it.

Copernicus · #34 09-29-2007, 08:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Without the sarcasm...you dont know, you cant possibly know, and to claim you know is ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

so in one post you chastise me for not knowing the raw motives of religion fundamentalists, and in the next try to analogize religious fanatics and/or arab nationalists with US domestic crime? woah

obviously i haven't conducted studies to find a determinative answer; thats why we are both on this forum debating on this, obviously. I am simply arguing that my view has something yours doesnt: common sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

it makes every bit as much sense as yours, you just wont take off the blinders to see it. There is NO QUESTION that the reaction of SOME children will be to rebell against the root cause of their fathers death...their own actions. And that has been studied and confirmed, not in the case of terrorsists, but in the case of children of those killed in criminal acts.

[/ QUOTE ]

fatal flaw in the analogy again: comparing a killing done by a domestic, locally accountable police force and that done by a foreign entity. no, its not a fatal flaw. The essence of both situations is that it is the actions of the FATHER that led to his death. In many levels of society here the "locally accountable police force" is seen as an enemy force. 

furthermore, the question is not whether SOME children of killed fathers "rebel" against their father's terrorist motives, but whether that SOME is greater than the SOME that are heartbroken that a foreign entity killed their father. no, you are again attempting to narrowit beyond what I said. It is whether the total impact of our strategy results in more or less terrorists in the future. and the answer is WE DONT KNOW

Look, I'm not against taking terrorists out. My politics are actually quite hawkish. I just think your logic here is flawed.

[/ QUOTE ] not in the least, and you havent demonstrated it to be. My logic leads to the conclusion that WE DONT KNOW. If you can demonstrate somehow that we can quantify the effects, feel free to do so. 

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, this is going to be my last post in this, I'll read any response you have but I can see I'm not really getting anywhere with you.

FATAL FLAW IN YOUR ANALOGY
1. "no, its not a fatal flaw. The essence of both situations is that it is the actions of the FATHER that led to his death." The fact that there is a basic theme between two comparisons (here, the police killing a criminal and army killing a terrorist, both of whom have children) doesn't touch on there being a fatal flaw. The whole point of a fatal flaw is that it is a giant hole in an otherwise palatable analogy. If your analogy didn't have a basic theme it wouldn't have a fatal flaw, it just wouldn't make sense.

2. "In many levels of society here the "locally accountable police force" is seen as an enemy force." I think you might have meant this is why your analogy doesn't have a fatal flaw instead of what I characterized in (1). This is a pretty generalized statement. We have all listened to a few NWA jams and all, but I would be highly skeptical on the number of areas in the US where they whole-heartedly believed the "locally accountable police force" to be an enemy force. Those are very strong words. For instance, there are statistics that somewhere in the region of 60% of Iraqis think attacks on American troops are justified. Find me a neighborhood in the US with statistics even approaching this number as against the local police force and MAYBE you have an argument. But it is still flawed because there is a huge difference between a police force that has been characterized as unfairly mistreating its citizens and an entire invasion by persons who practice a heretical form of religion. I'm sorry -- we all make bad analogies from time to time, and sometimes you just have to admit that you didn't think this one through entirely.

As an aside, I'm glad your argument has changed from the suggestion that such strategy DOES work to WE DO NOT KNOW if it works. But as a concluding thought, do you really think there are going to be positive affects by systematically killing people we suspect as terrorists in a place as murky as Iraq? Even all generals out there concede that places like Iraq need a political, not military solution. We are just two bozos on the Internets. I'll take their word for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing has changed in my argument, just your taking the time to acknowledge what it was. And you are misquoting the "generals". What they say is that a military solution ALONE is not sufficient. the political solutions are internal, and the objective of the military actions are to allow those political solutions to form without interference. Our end of the deal is primarily military, with the exception of providing guidance on how to reach those political solutions.

kniper · #35 09-29-2007, 08:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Nothing has changed in my argument, just your taking the time to acknowledge what it was. And you are misquoting the "generals". What they say is that a military solution ALONE is not sufficient. the political solutions are internal, and the objective of the military actions are to allow those political solutions to form without interference. Our end of the deal is primarily military, with the exception of providing guidance on how to reach those political solutions.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, im obv the one that needed to be brought up to speed. thanks dude. gg

John Kilduff · #36 09-29-2007, 09:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, the threat from Iran is real.

That doesn't mean Iran needs to be prevented from getting nukes. Another war in the Middle East would be a much more ruinously costly and messy idea. The Iraq War is destined to go on forever, because what the U.S. wants (Iraqis to get along with each other in a stable political system) the U.S. cannot provide. Only Iraqis can provide that, and they don't appear willing or ready to. And it doesn't appear that that will change anytime soon.

Get every American out of the Middle East. Screw it. Tell them we're never coming back, it's all theirs, and be well - and if they F with us it will be Lights Out from a very long distance away.

Get the USA back to a truly Constitutional basis, as Ron Paul would do. Renew our prosperity and private investment by massively cutting government and taxes. Stop giving free social services to illegal immigrants and watch them leave in droves.

Don't mess with the rest of the world. Wish them well but take care of ourselves. Trade with them and smile at them. Bring our overseas troops home from all over the world. Save trillions of dollars overseas and at home, and let the people keep that money and invest it instead.

This would be the path to a good future.

The path we are on now is not a path to a good future. It's not yet too late but it could be getting close. Wake up America, and get down to the basics of freedom and prosperity again. Get back to our Constitutional roots and get the government out of our lives. Shrink it and starve it financially so it can only be the lean mean rights-protecting-machine it was originally designed to be, along with a few other mundane duties as specifically described in the Constitution. Realize that the Welfare Clause doesn't mean government can do anything at all that might help the general welfare, but rather that anything it does must help the general welfare. It is a qualifying clause not a granting clause.

Realize too that the Commerce Clause has been ridiculously broadly interpreted into an absurd instrument granting nearly unlimited powers to the federal government. Fix that.

Stop looking to government to solve our personal problems and start solving them ourselves.

That's the answer. Sadly, I think America must suffer much more greatly before enough Americans come to realize it so that it will be put into practice.

The Neo-Cons are on the path right now to ensuring that much of that suffering will be forthcoming. The USA will NOT be able to transform the Middle East into what it would like it to be. Realize that and accept reality and move out and move on. The more we mess with the Middle East the worse it will get. The administration's doctrine that spreading democracy is essential to our security is absurd, and impossible to achieve anyway. Countries and cultures must want freedom and democracy and pay the price for it of their own volition, before it will work for them. And we mistake if we think, as Bush does, that everyone wants the same things as us. That just isn't so. They're doing what they want to do for the most part already. If the Shi'ites and the Sunnis keep fighting each other it's because they want to. Get out of their way; we can't really stop them anyway. They have to solve it for themselves.

Anyway, there's more than enough to do at home. Really and truly.

Take care and God bless, and thanks for reading.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this whole statement just isolationism? In light of the present realities of global trade, technology and the naturally occurring and evolving state of socio-global development, how could your requests ever work?

[/ QUOTE ]

It could work because we could (and would) keep trading with the rest of the world. So it's not a purely isoloationist stance. It's more of a non-inteventionist stance geared to strengthening our financial status and resources by virtue of not wasting resources with such expensive fripperies as keeping troops stationed in South Korea.

John Kilduff · #37 09-29-2007, 09:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, the threat from Iran is real.

That doesn't mean Iran needs to be prevented from getting nukes. Another war in the Middle East would be a much more ruinously costly and messy idea. The Iraq War is destined to go on forever, because what the U.S. wants (Iraqis to get along with each other in a stable political system) the U.S. cannot provide. Only Iraqis can provide that, and they don't appear willing or ready to. And it doesn't appear that that will change anytime soon.

Get every American out of the Middle East. Screw it. Tell them we're never coming back, it's all theirs, and be well - and if they F with us it will be Lights Out from a very long distance away.

Get the USA back to a truly Constitutional basis, as Ron Paul would do. Renew our prosperity and private investment by massively cutting government and taxes. Stop giving free social services to illegal immigrants and watch them leave in droves.

Don't mess with the rest of the world. Wish them well but take care of ourselves. Trade with them and smile at them. Bring our overseas troops home from all over the world. Save trillions of dollars overseas and at home, and let the people keep that money and invest it instead.

This would be the path to a good future.

The path we are on now is not a path to a good future. It's not yet too late but it could be getting close. Wake up America, and get down to the basics of freedom and prosperity again. Get back to our Constitutional roots and get the government out of our lives. Shrink it and starve it financially so it can only be the lean mean rights-protecting-machine it was originally designed to be, along with a few other mundane duties as specifically described in the Constitution. Realize that the Welfare Clause doesn't mean government can do anything at all that might help the general welfare, but rather that anything it does must help the general welfare. It is a qualifying clause not a granting clause.

Realize too that the Commerce Clause has been ridiculously broadly interpreted into an absurd instrument granting nearly unlimited powers to the federal government. Fix that.

Stop looking to government to solve our personal problems and start solving them ourselves.

That's the answer. Sadly, I think America must suffer much more greatly before enough Americans come to realize it so that it will be put into practice.

The Neo-Cons are on the path right now to ensuring that much of that suffering will be forthcoming. The USA will NOT be able to transform the Middle East into what it would like it to be. Realize that and accept reality and move out and move on. The more we mess with the Middle East the worse it will get. The administration's doctrine that spreading democracy is essential to our security is absurd, and impossible to achieve anyway. Countries and cultures must want freedom and democracy and pay the price for it of their own volition, before it will work for them. And we mistake if we think, as Bush does, that everyone wants the same things as us. That just isn't so. They're doing what they want to do for the most part already. If the Shi'ites and the Sunnis keep fighting each other it's because they want to. Get out of their way; we can't really stop them anyway. They have to solve it for themselves.

Anyway, there's more than enough to do at home. Really and truly.

Take care and God bless, and thanks for reading.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this whole statement just isolationism? In light of the present realities of global trade, technology and the naturally occurring and evolving state of socio-global development, how could your requests ever work?

[/ QUOTE ]

How does it work for the rest of the world? How do the other nations of the world manage to exist without military bases in every corner of the world?

[/ QUOTE ]

They freeride on us, Israel, the UK and Aussies to some extent, obviously.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the economies of the U.K, Europe, and Aussie-land are sufficiently robust to pick up the security slack should we depart (Israel might be a special case though).

John Kilduff · #38 09-29-2007, 09:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, the threat from Iran is real.

That doesn't mean Iran needs to be prevented from getting nukes. Another war in the Middle East would be a much more ruinously costly and messy idea. The Iraq War is destined to go on forever, because what the U.S. wants (Iraqis to get along with each other in a stable political system) the U.S. cannot provide. Only Iraqis can provide that, and they don't appear willing or ready to. And it doesn't appear that that will change anytime soon.

Get every American out of the Middle East. Screw it. Tell them we're never coming back, it's all theirs, and be well - and if they F with us it will be Lights Out from a very long distance away.

Get the USA back to a truly Constitutional basis, as Ron Paul would do. Renew our prosperity and private investment by massively cutting government and taxes. Stop giving free social services to illegal immigrants and watch them leave in droves.

Don't mess with the rest of the world. Wish them well but take care of ourselves. Trade with them and smile at them. Bring our overseas troops home from all over the world. Save trillions of dollars overseas and at home, and let the people keep that money and invest it instead.

This would be the path to a good future.

The path we are on now is not a path to a good future. It's not yet too late but it could be getting close. Wake up America, and get down to the basics of freedom and prosperity again. Get back to our Constitutional roots and get the government out of our lives. Shrink it and starve it financially so it can only be the lean mean rights-protecting-machine it was originally designed to be, along with a few other mundane duties as specifically described in the Constitution. Realize that the Welfare Clause doesn't mean government can do anything at all that might help the general welfare, but rather that anything it does must help the general welfare. It is a qualifying clause not a granting clause.

Realize too that the Commerce Clause has been ridiculously broadly interpreted into an absurd instrument granting nearly unlimited powers to the federal government. Fix that.

Stop looking to government to solve our personal problems and start solving them ourselves.

That's the answer. Sadly, I think America must suffer much more greatly before enough Americans come to realize it so that it will be put into practice.

The Neo-Cons are on the path right now to ensuring that much of that suffering will be forthcoming. The USA will NOT be able to transform the Middle East into what it would like it to be. Realize that and accept reality and move out and move on. The more we mess with the Middle East the worse it will get. The administration's doctrine that spreading democracy is essential to our security is absurd, and impossible to achieve anyway. Countries and cultures must want freedom and democracy and pay the price for it of their own volition, before it will work for them. And we mistake if we think, as Bush does, that everyone wants the same things as us. That just isn't so. They're doing what they want to do for the most part already. If the Shi'ites and the Sunnis keep fighting each other it's because they want to. Get out of their way; we can't really stop them anyway. They have to solve it for themselves.

Anyway, there's more than enough to do at home. Really and truly.

Take care and God bless, and thanks for reading.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this whole statement just isolationism? In light of the present realities of global trade, technology and the naturally occurring and evolving state of socio-global development, how could your requests ever work?

[/ QUOTE ]

In any case, it's not isolationism, it's non-interventionism. The USA would still trade and interact with the rest of the world, it just wouldn't interfere in their affairs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe non-interventionism is what the OP is advocating. Regardless, we do have many, significant strategic agreements. Is the argument that US should walk away from all of these commitments?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps give a time frame after which such agreements would expire and be up for posible renewal or renegotiation. Wouldn't it absurd if the U.S. were to be responsible for defending, say, Taiwan and South Korea for the next 200 years?

John Kilduff · #39 09-29-2007, 09:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
lol i should have known that this would be for ron paul...

isolationism is a terrible idea that was discredited in the early 20th century. do you really think if we close our eyes it will all go away?

[/ QUOTE ]

My OP was not about Ron Paul, although he is the only candidate to have merited an honorable mention in it.

Non-interventionism is not isolationism.

John Kilduff · #40 09-29-2007, 09:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you have the right ideas OP but sadly its a cold harsh world out there. imagine all the money that would go directly into financing terrorism against us if we left iraq

[/ QUOTE ]
Imagine all the people who wouldn't become terrorists because their family wasn't blown up by an American bomb...

[/ QUOTE ]

Imagine all the people who wont become terrorists because their father was killed before he could teach him to strap on a bomb.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol.... are you serious or is this a lvl?

That is a really uninformed way of trying to justify military action in the Middle East. Do you REALLY think its these kids' fathers that are teaching them to strap on bomb's to their vests? that is absolutely true in many cases Any non-lunatic father is obviously not going to choose his son to commit suicide bombings (cause he loves him, obv). thats not at all obvious in a society that values martyrdom Terrorist organizations most certainly in most cases pick the weakest, naivest and stupidest of their recruits to strap on a bomb. that doesnt preclude others from doing the same A likely reason that naive/weak/moron is probably in that position in the first place is because he had poor guidance growing up(eg, no dad).

[/ QUOTE ]

you really have no clue as to the motivation of religious fundamentalists.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT