ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Sun Nov 18, 2018 8:46 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 91 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 09, 2002 10:17 pm 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 128
Location: Evanston, IL (USA)
Quick answer to thegoldstandard and veritron: We're sitting around because he, like everyone else that has such weapons (including us) hasn't used them or declared his intentions to. That's all I'm saying we need to wait on before we smack the shit out of him and his godforsaken country.

On to KC...

Quote:
On 2002-12-09 15:50, Kills Commies wrote:
Biological and chemical attacks are chancy, localized, and their effects can be reduced or negated with proper preperation (as Israel does.) There is no way to defend from a nuclear bomb because its effects are for all intents and purposes instantaneous, and the long lasting effects (radiation, etc) have no readily available source.

I know the media has hyped up bio and chem weapons as some bigass threat, but the flat truth is that biological and chemical attacks can be defended against. Most diseases arn't overwhelmingly fatal- a quick quartentine of any area will make sure the disease does not spread. Chemical weapons disperse quickly and if prepared for will have little or no effect, even on a mass scale.


I would love to see an expert on the subject agree with you on this one (again, some quotes from our good old Dept. of Defense would be lovely...kind of hard to accquire, since they've still got all those messages about how big of a threat terrorist biological weapons are from the anthrax scare, but there you have it). There's a reason we catergorize biological and chemical weapons as WoMD, you know...they are.

There's also the problem that you can say a chemical weapon disperses quickly all you like, but that's not going to make a difference to the people sucking chlorine (or sarine, or whatever the hell else is out there). And, if it's that easy to prepare for, and we know Saddam's had these weapons for a while, why hasn't Israel prepared for it on a large scale? Maybe because it's not so easy.

The third point on Saddam's current weapons is that you say nukes make invasion riskier because he can nuke the troops. As opposed to hitting them with a biological or chemical weapon? Accept your suggestion that disease can be stopped easily with quarentine, and you still lose all the men who got hit in the first place. It's not like they're going to be any less dead because the disease didn't kill off half of Israel or poison the land instead. Same with chemical weapons--get vaporized, or choke to death on some horrible gas, it's all the same once you're dead. So unless you want to launch an invasion of guys in full biocontainment suits (which would be kinda funny to watch, I'll admit), I don't see why nukes are so much more of a threat.

Quote:
A nuclear weapon, in contrast, blows up, kills a good deal of people, and makes the region around it uninhabitable for generations, as well as screwing up the genes of a lotta innocent bystanders. In short, its worse.


I would agree with that. However, I don't see how the difference makes Saddam any less of a threat to invading troops, or gives him less of a big stick to wave at Israel right now. Sure, nukes are nastier that what he's got and do a lot more long-term damage, but how does this prevent him from saying "ah hah, I have the power to reach Israel with biological weapons, now stand back and let me expand while I do"? It still seems to me that, if he's bent on using WoMD to prevent people from stopping his expansion, he's got the weapons he needs to do it.

Quote:
Treespeaker, you missed by point on the nukes. We cannot and will not nuke Hussein first, period. We would have done that with the soviets, but such an act is of despots and hegemons, not a democratic nation. The agreement has always been that with nukes, the other guy has to hit first. Having nukes doesn't justify the use of nuclear weapons, the most destructive weapon available to humans as of yet, on another nation.


I guess I don't see how using a nuke is automatically evil and despotical, where everything else isn't. I've heard a lot on this particular thread on how sometimes you're justified in killing people or taking violent action, and almost as much on how the US is justified in doing so...but if we do it with a nuke, we're no longer democratic? I don't get it...

The other point is, we didn't nuke the Soviets because they would have nuked the fuck out of us if we did. Saddam Hussien doesn't have that advantage, so there's nothing to stop us glazing half his country if we're justified in using force to stop him(which most everyone seems to agree we are).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 09, 2002 10:33 pm 
Offline
Local

Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 210
Quote:
On 2002-12-07 18:15, The Goldstandard wrote:
What do the Chinese punish their people for? Thinking for themselves, disagreeing with the government, or simply because they were in the way.


http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/ ... index.html


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 10, 2002 1:22 am 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 128
Location: Evanston, IL (USA)
Links bad, quotes good. Sympathy for dial-up users is good for your karma.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 10, 2002 11:48 am 
Offline
Local

Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 210
I was replying to Gold's assertion that in the USA we don't follow the ways of the dictatorship.

Quote:
On 2002-12-07 18:15, The Goldstandard wrote:

The USA is FAR different. Here, I can think what I want to think, ... say what I want to say...


From CNN, a "reliable" source.

Quote:
'Burning Bush' comment draws prison term
Man plans to appeal
Friday, December 6, 2002 Posted: 2:59 PM EST (1959 GMT)

SIOUX FALLS, South Dakota (AP) -- A man who made a remark about a "burning Bush" during the president's March 2001 trip to Sioux Falls was sentenced Friday to 37 months in prison.

Richard Humphreys of Portland, Oregon was convicted in September of threatening to kill or harm the president and said he plans to appeal. He has said the comment was a prophecy protected under his right to free speech.

Humphreys said he got into a barroom discussion in nearby Watertown with a truck driver. A bartender who overheard the conversation realized the president was to visit Sioux Falls the next day and told police Humphreys talked about a "burning Bush" and the possibility of someone pouring a flammable liquid on Bush and lighting it.

"I said God might speak to the world through a burning Bush," Humphreys testified during his trial. "I had said that before and I thought it was funny."



I mean, this Humphrey guy is obviously a moron, and didn't actually pose a threat to the president. If we put people like Humphreys in jail for saying dumb things, what makes people think that we don't have political prisoners?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 10, 2002 10:56 pm 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 128
Location: Evanston, IL (USA)
Actually, a similar thing happened to a man commenting on the President's large posterier when John Adams rode through New York...under the Sedition Act, he was convicted of seditious propagandizing and sentanced to jail. Of course, in my history classes, this has been one of the examples teachers or authors like to use when portraying Adams as the most despotical of the first five Presidents (when that award obviously belongs to Jefferson)...have to wonder what historians will say about Bush in a hundred and fifty years.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 10, 2002 11:00 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
All I have to say is thats the equivalent to yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre. You don't fuck around when you're talking about this stuff, moron or no.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:55 am 
Offline
Local

Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 210
Yeah, but you don't go to jail for 3 years if you yell 'fire' in a crowded theater. Perhaps if Humphreys had demonstrated a willingness and intent to set fire to the president, such a jail term would be acceptable. But for making a lame Bible joke? The punishment seems a bit excessive.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 11, 2002 3:02 am 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 521
Location: California
Well, even if it was a little stupid, the guy was lucky. In China he would have been tortured to death by now.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 11, 2002 3:10 pm 
Offline
Local

Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 210
The way things are going, that may one day be the case in America as well. After the attacks on the WTC, we had the opportunity to step back and re-examine our society and its policies, and maybe seeing another way of going about our lives in a less intrusive and harmful manner. But we didn't do that. We treated terrorism like a disease instead of a symptom.

Like it or not, this is eventually going to lead us the way of <i>1984</i>. We haven't gotten there. We can still turn back. But if we continue to pursue our current course of action, we will all find our civil liberties have become a thing of the past. Bush is a pansy compared to the people who could rise to power. And we would welcome it. You think it can't happen? Look at Russia, Cambodia, Germany, Italy, or almost any country that had a totalitarian government at some point. It would almost be easier in America, thanks to the overwhelming complacency of the middle class. The possibility is out there, and we're going in the right direction.

<i>“Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."

~Julius Caesar</i>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 11, 2002 3:56 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
heh!

OH MY FUCKING GOD THAT WAS FUNNY.

The quote you had is not a quote, tycho. It was quoted by one of our glorious political leaders/actresses, and she was called on it. This is embaressing just to be in the same thread with anyone who would be such an idiot as to not actually quote from Julius Caesar and instead take it off some website or worse, Barba Streisand.

This has happened many times in the past, and no matter how conservative you are you must realise that this is the normal course in a war, and once most of the threat is gone it will be revoked. Look at history- once the most prominent threats have been handled most of these laws (patriot act etc) will be revoked. Unless of course you believe in some grand conspriacy by some of the most patriotic people out there (Bush's cabinent, DoD people etc) to take over the US and betray its laws.

Anyway...

Tree: It is a logical conclusion I came to based on the assumption of readyness on the part of the affected country, comparing the estimated results of biological/chemical/nuclear weapons. The information is widely available on the web.

Besides that, Chemical and biological weapons can, once again, be defended against. Vaccines, quartentines, the nature of said weapons, etc. Nuclear weapons cannot. This obviously makes them a fair deal worse than biological or chemical weapons.

Now, lets review.

Hussein needs to die.
The USA might or might not be threatened by Hussein
The USA might be being hypocritical by attacking Iraq, because he might not present a threat and his huhman rights abuses are by no means unique
Hypocritical or no, its good that Hussein gets killed and a democracy (ala Japan after WWII) is installed.

Given all of this, the only real debate question is not wether we go to war, but if the US is being hypocritical in going to war. Hussein dead, no matter how hypocritical the reason, is a desireable thing.

Agreed?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 11, 2002 5:53 pm 
Offline
Local

Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 210
Internet! You have lied to me! How? Why? Curse you! Curse you!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 11, 2002 6:16 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 521
Location: California
Quote:
We treated terrorism like a disease instead of a symptom.


When you refer to terrorism as a symptom, you are implying that America is the disease, am I right?

Am I getting the feeling that you are doing the "blame America first" dance? Really, the only thing the USA is guilty of is taking on the unearned guilt for the way the middle east is today. Truth is, the middle east fucked itself up. Had the US never existed, they would still be fucked up, because they never adopted a civilized form of government. Theocracy and dictatorship was what created the Middle eastern mess, even Saddam was just supported, not created, by the US. The only reason we even did help Saddam was because we were hoping that with just enough support Iran and Iraq would destroy each other and therefore remove Saddam and the theocracy of Iran as a threat.

The only thing we are guilty of is not squashing Militant Islam like a bug when it first began.

Trying to blame an atrocity like September 11th on bad foreign policy is inexcusible, and anyone who does it deserves a kick square in the nuts.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 11, 2002 9:13 pm 
Offline
Local

Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 210
Quote:
On 2002-12-11 14:56, Kills Commies wrote:
This has happened many times in the past, and no matter how conservative you are you must realise that this is the normal course in a war, and once most of the threat is gone it will be revoked. Look at history- once the most prominent threats have been handled most of these laws (patriot act etc) will be revoked. Unless of course you believe in some grand conspriacy by some of the most patriotic people out there (Bush's cabinent, DoD people etc) to take over the US and betray its laws.


But how long will it take to end this war? We are fighting an enemy with no conventional military or infrastructure to assault. We could spend decades hunting down terrorists, and still have done nothing to end it. One of the key factors in 1984 was war, and the fear that war brings with it. How will we know that the war on terror is over? If we capture Osama, another leader will take his place, and he could be almost anywhere in the world. Hell, you can destroy 10 terrosist organisitions and 20 will spring up to take their place. We could theoretically have a state of continual war, and thus we would never get our rights back.


Quote:
On 2002-12-11 17:16, The Goldstandard wrote:

When you refer to terrorism as a symptom, you are implying that America is the disease, am I right?


No, we aren't the disease. The disease could be anything, whatever the root of the problem may be. Saying the US is the disease is saying that the US is the cause of terrorism. I'm saying that our leaders haven't pursued solutions that will elimintate terrorism. They see terrorism as the problem. I see terrorism as a result of the problem. It is futile to attempt to cure illness by treating the symptoms. Fix the situation that makes people want to become terrorists, and you will have no more terrorism.
_________________
The air tastes so much sweeter when you dance to the sound of your pounding heart.
<img src=http://crimethinc.com/downloadsgraphics/preview/bullet.jpg>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: tychoseven on 2002-12-11 20:14 ]</font>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 11, 2002 9:25 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 521
Location: California
Ok, then. If terrorism is the result of a problem, what is the problem? The problem is militant islam, an ideology which teaches men to love death and hate life. It teaches them to hate the country which has allowed more people to live happy, decent lives than any other, the USA. The way to fight the war on terrorism is to not only destroy the terrorists themselves, but to defeat the ideas that create them. One way is to remove or eliminate the terrorists spiritual leaders, the Mullahs, etc. These people, while they may not directly threaten our civilization, turn young boys into killers for their cause, who grow up with no other goal than to do as much damage as possible to us. It would be something similar to the "de-nazification" which we did in Germany.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 11, 2002 10:07 pm 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 128
Location: Evanston, IL (USA)
Quote:
On 2002-12-11 14:56, Kills Commies wrote:
Tree: It is a logical conclusion I came to based on the assumption of readyness on the part of the affected country, comparing the estimated results of biological/chemical/nuclear weapons. The information is widely available on the web.


Let's assume that I'm a lazy schmuck, or a poor researcher. Or let's assume that the only sites I've found supporting this are joe.republican.killsaddam.com and the like. Would you mind posting a few reliable sources for us, or at least citing them so's we can check for ourselves whether or not anyone of great credibility believes Israel and neighboring nations can effectivly defend themselves from a biological or chemical strike? I'd certainly appreciate the reaffirmation, and I'm sure no one else would object to it.

Quote:
Besides that, Chemical and biological weapons can, once again, be defended against. Vaccines, quartentines, the nature of said weapons, etc. Nuclear weapons cannot. This obviously makes them a fair deal worse than biological or chemical weapons.


So, with nukes, Saddam Hussien can say "I will turn a major city in Israel into an unihabitable glass bowl if you try to stop my invasion" should we allow him to gain nuclear capability. As of right now, he can merely say "I can infect a city with a deadly disease, thereby killing the population but allowing for the disease to be contained by quarentines or vaccines, and I will if you try to stop my expansion." Or, alternativly "I can kill the population of a city by flooding it with deadly gases that will disperse quickly and can be defended against with biocontamination suits for the entire populace and I will if you try to stop my expansion." I don't deny that nukes are the worst of the three weapons and the hardest to defend against the effects of; I would argue that Saddam still has a plenty big enough stick to wave if he were going to use WoMD as an umbrella to invade and expand under.

Quote:
Hussein needs to die.


I don't think the world would be the worst for it, but, like tychoseven, I do have to question whether the US has the right to relieve it of his burden...his point that there are a good many people who deserve to die that don't, and plenty who don't that do, is certainly a compelling argument about too hastily condemming a man to death, and then there's another issue I have to rasie: If part of our justification for invasion is that Saddam Hussien clearly deserves to die, aren't we sort of supporting the violent removal of political leaders whose doctrines and actions disagree with ours? Of course, his in particular disagree with ours because they are, as has been pointed out many times, despotical and supported by very few sane people outside of his own government, but it remains that that is the position being advocated.

Quote:
The USA might or might not be threatened by Hussein


This is not an argument for invasion of a country. "They might be a threat to us" would be an unimaginable PR debacle. Remember those photos of guys clinging to the helicopter skids as we fled Vietnam? Or Watergate? Like those, only worse.

Quote:
The USA might be being hypocritical by attacking Iraq, because he might not present a threat and his huhman rights abuses are by no means unique


There's no "might" about it...it is a fairly hypocritical act (although there are certainly compelling arguments on the first page regarding how the US should protect its interests by invading this oil-rich human rights abuser while letting others go). I don't think, however, that that automatically disqualifies the possibility of invasion, it is merely an argument against it and a bit more support for the PR debacle argument.

Quote:
Hypocritical or no, its good that Hussein gets killed and a democracy (ala Japan after WWII) is installed.


Or another dictatorship? We put Marcos in the Philippines, Chun in South Korea, Somoza in Nicaragua, the Colonels in Greece...the list goes on and on. Suffice it to say, the US is hardly infallible when it comes installing or supporting democratic nations. For the "Saddam gets killed" part, see earlier in the post.

Quote:
Given all of this, the only real debate question is not wether we go to war, but if the US is being hypocritical in going to war. Hussein dead, no matter how hypocritical the reason, is a desireable thing.
Agreed?


To cystalize this post, no.


Edit: Had to fix the brackets on a quote command again.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Treespeaker on 2002-12-11 21:09 ]</font>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 11, 2002 10:14 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
Then you are morally bankrupt. "right" or no, tyrannicide is a fun and just pasttime.

End of discussion. I will not make up for your shoddy researchmanship, nor will I continue this discussion with people who refuse to see any larger picture than their own interint distrust for the US. Good day.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2002 12:17 am 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 128
Location: Evanston, IL (USA)
And now, another grand old debating tradition...the dreaded "line-by-line satire"!!!

Quote:
On 2002-12-11 21:14, Kills Commies wrote:
Then you are morally bankrupt.


[translation] You draw your moral line at a different point than I do.[/translation]

Didn't we already agree that everyone has a different set of moral standards in this thread? And say that that was, by and large, a)human nature and b)pretty much okay?

Quote:
"right" or no, tyrannicide is a fun and just pasttime.


[translation]This is my opinion: killing bad people is legitimate.[/translation]

We know you feel that way already. Please, let us know why in a little more detail. Who knows, you might even convince us. I'm certainly not dead-set against it.

Quote:
End of discussion.


[translation] I quit.[/translation]

In debates, this generally means that the other side wins by default...do you really want to say that we're right and invasion is a bad idea? I'd rather you didn't, as it's been an interesting thread so far.

Quote:
I will not make up for your shoddy researchmanship...


[translation]I can't find any evidence that isn't from joe.republican.stopsaddamnow.bushisgod.com supporting my argument[/translation]

Another argument might be a good idea, then.

(An interesting side-note on shoddy research...just got my translation back graded, and I goofed majorly on my latest German assignment, meaning that my earlier comment was untrue. What the article actually said was that the german Congress had not yet passed a resolution regarding economic sanctions, but that, if the US invades without UN support, the PM "won't speak for certain." Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. And I know that isn't German.)

Quote:
...nor will I continue this discussion with people who refuse to see any larger picture than their own interint distrust for the US.


[translation]Disagreeing with me=US BAD BAD BAD BURN BUSH GO SADDAM NYAH HAH HAH HAH HAH[/translation]

Too stupid even to respond to.

Quote:
Good day.


[translation]Bad day.[/translation]



Edit: Brackets, always those brackets...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Treespeaker on 2002-12-11 23:21 ]</font>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2002 1:18 am 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 521
Location: California
Hehe, nice try Tree, you haven't won yet.

Quote:
And now, another grand old debating tradition...the dreaded "line-by-line satire"!!!

Quote:
On 2002-12-11 21:14, Kills Commies wrote:
Then you are morally bankrupt.


[translation] You draw your moral line at a different point than I do.[/translation]


Wrong. KC did not say that, he said that you are morally bankupt, which means you <i>have no morals at all.</i>
Quote:
Quote:
"right" or no, tyrannicide is a fun and just pasttime.


[translation]This is my opinion: killing bad people is legitimate.[/translation]


It is not an opinion. Tyranicide is good, and that is a fact, not an opinion. This is true by the nature of tyrannies and the results that come from ending them.

Quote:
Quote:
End of discussion.


[translation] I quit.[/translation]


No, he didn't. You simply proved that debate with you is useless, because you are closed-minded.
Quote:
Quote:
I will not make up for your shoddy researchmanship...


[translation]I can't find any evidence that isn't from joe.republican.stopsaddamnow.bushisgod.com supporting my argument[/translation]


Can we please stop throwing homework at eachother?

Quote:
Quote:
...nor will I continue this discussion with people who refuse to see any larger picture than their own interint distrust for the US.


[translation]Disagreeing with me=US BAD BAD BAD BURN BUSH GO SADDAM NYAH HAH HAH HAH HAH[/translation]

Too stupid even to respond to.


The translation is not only false, but is in fact much more stupid than the origional could ever be.

Quote:
Quote:
Good day.


[translation]Bad day.[/translation]


Wrong again. It's
<b>Good day.</b>

The line by line satire is simply exercising your desire to rewrite your opponents words in a way that is different from what he really mean't. You proved nothing, and you have said nothing.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2002 1:40 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
Funny, but in the end stupid. I got my data from scientific resources, fuck you very much, but I fail to see a reason to have to go track down the various books/websites (which I do not have on hand) that you can find yourself. Perhaps after finals week, but not now.

Secondly- your own words seem depressingly idiotic. Killing tyrants isn't okay?! We have to have a REASON to kill tyrants now?

Hey, how about this one: they're tyrants! They pissed us off and have (as the French have said) ties to Al Quida. Under his rulership people are tortured and killed, and he destabalizes the entire region. Thats damn well good enough for me.

Now, I already said- Hussein should be killed because of his human rights violations alone. You all agreed that killing him would be all good and such, but yet you say we shouldn't go to war...because tyrants are people too? I'm wondering here, aside from all other arguments, whats the possible reason why everyone should just jump in gleefulness at the thought of this guy biting it? What is the problem here?

Flimsy reason (in your wrong opinion) or no, why is anyone complaining that this guy is going to die? I'm wondering here...because the Iraqi people are evil?

Maybe...I dunno...you think that some weird, hypothetical situation where some other country uses this as an excuse to attack another, is more important that freedom for the iraqi people and death for this ass?

So hold on, lets see here. On the one hand you feel that tyrants can't be taken out unless we have a reason ("he's a tyrant and he actively hate us and will jump at the chance to aid in hurting us" isn't a good enough reason any more.) On the other, you have a person who is up there with the worst human rights abusers on the planet, who made war on his neighbors, who hates the US, has ties to Al Quida, and is trying to develope nuclear weapons.

Now, given this, no good reason?

Lastly, the bio/chemcial weapon comment- biological and chemical weapons are both cases like this.

Biological weapons can be defended against. Vaccines, as I mentioned, are very effective against biological weapons (as most people in Israel will be lining up for vaccines pretty soon, I'd imagine.) We know the kinds of diseases he has a hold of- therefore it would be theoretically easy to defend against. Additionally, biological agents are never 100% fatal. Even in the crappiest conditions ever, the black death only wiped out 1/3rd of its victims, after all.

Chemical weapons are also not 100% lethal most of the time (remember the chemical attack in the japanese subway? not a lot of deaths, just lots of dehibilitations,) are hard to deliver (missiles are bad carriers for both bio and chemical agents, btw- the impact and explosion often ruin the load. Though the data is available in several books (I think) the only source I can cite with confidence right now on that is a history channel special on said weapons (bio/chemical weapons) and are dispersed fairly quickly and easily (thats basic chemistry, so yeah, I feel no need to cite.)

Nuclear weapons- have none of these problems. As well, gas masks can't defend against it so that they're effective battlefield weapons. Would YOU endorse an attack on a country knowing that at some point our forces may have a nuclear weapon leveled against them? Most people would not support essensially sending their soldiers to die in large numbers.

So yes. Must get back to study...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2002 4:00 am 
Offline
Tourist

Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 31
Location: Evansville, IN
A few thoughts on the nature of tyrannicide.

One: firstly, the tyrant proper must be genuinely a tyrant, and not just someone Side A dislikes because they are a member of Side B. To use a historical reference, the people ruled by Vlad Tepes (AKA Dracula) thought he was a wonderful ruler because he protected them and kept them safe from invasions, even if this involved a little Turk-onna-stick and the usual aristocratic bilge.

Two: upon determining that a certain person is a tyrant, one must note whether or not his/her removal would be beneficial for the country in question as well as those who are opposed to their rule. If they're all that's holding some pop-gun little country together then those intent on the removing had best be damned certain they know how to pick up the pieces once the chum hits the fan.

Three: upon verifying answers to points one and two, swift removal of said tyrant and any and all supportive staff (ministers of propaganda, et.al.) should be of the utmost importance. Leave as many civilians out of the mess, as civilians (by their/our very nature) tend to believe and support anything given enough time under the grindstone.

Summary: killing one or a small group of people in order to liberate/save the lives of/help bring about a cultural Renaissance in/be nice to a vastly superior number of people = logical and sensible, to me, at least. Rebuttals?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 91 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group