|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
 Posted - 03/18/2008 : 20:44:53 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
| Ok, you will irritate me if you continue to mischaracterize what I am saying. |
Damn! Just when I thought we were really making a little progress! Well, nobody said anger management would be easy!| I asked how a nuke, or ten, could destroy civilization |
"How could a nuke, or ten, destroy civilization?" translates exactly to "I challenge you to create a hypothetical situation in which (terrorists with) ten nukes can destroy civilization" I did exactly this, with the disclaimer that the detonation of ten bombs would not in itself be the end of civilization; but that such a scenario could be the prelude to possible world destruction via nuclear war.
I do not see that as mischaracterizing your question, rather I see it as precisely answering your question! You asked how, I showed you how! Why is that "not answering your question"? I did not fail, I did not engage in any game, I certainly did speculate; that is what "hypothetical" means, and it is all that either of us have done with regard to this matter in this entire thread!| His book was published in Feb 2004, indicating he wrote in in 2003 or before. So it is at least 5 years old. His fears seem to have not become reality. In 2002/2003 I may have been on the bandwagon with you and Frank, but no longer. |
Well, it's perfectly reasonable for you to change your mind, but why in the hell did you cite a reference for your position that you now discount and, in fact, significantly disagrees with most of what you said? Doesn't sound to me like a clever way to win a debate, Dude!| I begin to suspect that they don't really want to engage in nuclear terrorism. One nuke set off somewhere (anywhere really) by terrorists will set the entire world against them. Every organization labeled as "terrorist" by the US/Israel/UK/German intelligence agencies would be exterminated |
Having lived through the hideous Nazi regime in Germany, and the long, very, very real cold war, I deeply, sincerely hope you are right, Dude "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it"
| International law enforcement efforts seem to be degrading the ability of terrorist groups to function lately as well. We've gone from the well organized attack on NYC, to smaller bombings in Europe, to some retards setting themselves on fire at an airport... |
Well and good, but "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance"! I think that includes thinking the unthinkable. |
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2008 : 22:08:43 [Permalink]
|
bng said:
| Well, it's perfectly reasonable for you to change your mind, but why in the hell did you cite a reference for your position that you now discount and, in fact, significantly disagrees with most of what you said? Doesn't sound to me like a clever way to win a debate, Dude! |
I'm going to stop speaking to you if you continue to behave like marfknox.
The portion of the book I quoted supports the argument I was making, that it doesn't require great skill to make a crude nuclear bomb, quite well.
Just admit that you have lost this argument and move on. Seriously.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2008 : 00:50:26 [Permalink]
|
Dr. Mabuse.....
I am afraid it's time for surgery, Doctor!| That was obviously an error on my part. His multiple 100 Megaton attack was so ludicrous I didn't realise he actually meant it would escalate to a Global exchange as anything but the joke it was. |
1. We have adequately covered the "100 megaton" typo.
2. I clearly stipulated the purely speculative, or hypothetical, nature of my comment and I did not say "it would escalate to a global exchange" My word was could! That is mischaracterization that some would call "dishonest", Mabuse!
| Maybe I should have thought through my response a bit more carefully. |
We all should do that much more frequently than we do. | But bngbuck doesn't seem to understand that it is unrealistic of him to expect that people won't shove back if they are pushed around too much. |
It's just that my radioactive foot makes me cranky! | 9/11 should have taught the American public, people will say enough is enough and get back what ever way they can. |
This inflammatory comment is ample fodder for a new thread, and if you feel qualified to defend that assertion, I will be pleased to respond in detail should you start one. Suffice to say, my informed opinion is that 9/11 was a consequence of extraordinarily deranged religious zealots blindly following the dictates of a power crazed megalomaniac.
That there are elements of justifiable offense taken to American foreign policy, particularly of the past eight years of Bush, and undoubtedly extending back to the years immediately following WW2, is without question! Iraq is an abomination, given! Cheney and company exploiting Gulf nations for oil riches, absolutely!
But justification for 9/11 based on Anerica "pushing" too much, I violently object to, and I would very much like to expand upon my objections! Your statement is outrageous if you mean that 9/11 was justified by American meddling in the affairs of various middle eastern nations in order to control and manipulate their oil resources, even though that is all true!
I, for one, will be delighted to respond to you if you care to make an argument justifying terrorism as a response to an abysmally failed foreign policy! State your case clearly, Mabuse, in a new thread, please!| Dude, I think you are over-estimating the effect a crashed American economy will have on the World Economy. When the American dollar is worth only the paper it's printed on, commerce will change currency to Euro, Sterling Pound, Yen, or Chinese Yuan. In fact, not long ago I heard on economy news that the fixed exchange rate between Yuan and US Dollar was the only thing preventing a major dive on the value of the dollar. Considering how the Chinese economy is booming, and yesterday's news of the bank crises in America, it's only a matter of time anyway. |
I agree with Dude wholeheartedly regarding this and I am sure that he is fully competent to defend his position. Your currency assumptions are naïve to say the least! If Dude does not care to respond, I will in my next post.
I very pointedly asked a question in response to your quote:| Given the current state of American politics and its interference in the affairs of other countries, I'm not sure the rest of the world would be worse off. |
Not sure the world would be worse off if what happened?
You, very obviously, have refused to directly answer my question. Would you please answer it now?| Sorry for being unclear. I meant "teach the American public something". Somehow I got the impression that you were a part of the problem, not the solution. Perhaps it's the fear-mongering Kool-Aid you drank that made me think that. |
I may well be part of the problem. Please clearly delineate what problem you are referring to! Regarding the Kool-Aid, please try to be original enough to either appropriate your own metaphors or invent new ones! It adds immeasureably to the entertainment value of these posts, and contributes to the well-being of our hosts!| But you have no problem calling me "callous, naive, arrogant, and totally unrealistic" and "pathological lack of even a shred of human compassion astounds me!" based on your presumption of what I meant. |
Presumption, hell, all of that is true, if you meant what you said! Answer what I asked you, Mabuse, and perhaps that will become clear!| You know what? It doesn't strike me as sincere considering what you've already said. |
Sincerity is not an issue here. What I said is self-evidently true! I did not and will not comment on your age, etc.| Apology tentatively accepted. |
Well, don't go a step out of your way, Mabuse until you understand that I was apologizing only for posting a typographical mistake and not correcting it in proofreading! Nothing else!| Suddenly your apology doesn't seem sincere. |
I repeat - I only apologize for my typo. That is sincere!| Even less so.(to myself:} why I bother? |
Even though it is a rhetorical or self-addressed question, it demands an answer. It is because of your wounded vanity and testosterone-fueled need to respond to challenge! Which description is precisely as accurately applied to myself and to Dude also.
It is the spirit that drives many of these forums and it is a good thing! (Even if testosterone is not involved as in the cases of our excellent female correspondents, who are also stimulated by and exhilarated by the contest of wit!) Except, of course, for those of us that are too senile to adequately express themselves!
A footnote regarding your use of the word "senile". Anyone calling me senile, or referring in a jocular way to my age or my "old ass" etc. is more than welcome to snipe all they want to as long as it is in fun! I am in no way sensitive to such comments as long as they are in a spirit of friendly ridicule!
But if your comment about my being too "senile" to comment on these boards was indeed serious, I do take offense: much as Chippewa took offense at my unintended slur regarding his ethnicity (which I was unaware of at that time) I was trying to make a joke based solely on his forum identity. Big mistake. He was right. OK, I learned!
I may comment on your callousness, naivete, or arrogance regarding your expressed opinion, but I have been very careful not to call you a "block-headed Swede" or some such ignorant, quasi-racist remark. And I would apologize for even putting those offensive words in print, except that they are necessary to make my point! Please confine your insults to what I have said, not what I am!
Except if you're joking! Then, anything goes!
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2008 : 09:27:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
1. We have adequately covered the "100 megaton" typo. |
Yes, I realise that. I suppose the time zone difference is at least partly to blame for us talking past each other. When I concede that you actually meant 100 ton explosions instead of thousand-fold more, your "taking advantage of the situation" pre-emptive strike against USA seems even more ludicrous.
| 2. I clearly stipulated the purely speculative, or hypothetical, nature of my comment and I did not say "it would escalate to a global exchange" My word was could! That is mischaracterization that some would call "dishonest", Mabuse! |
I got that it was speculative. I question your reason for even suggesting it, because it's so far off the map you're in your neighbours tool-shed.
| 9/11 should have taught the American public, people will say enough is enough and get back what ever way they can. |
This inflammatory comment is ample fodder for a new thread, |
How is it inflammatory? I just stating self-evident facts!
People don't like getting pushed around. At some point they will start pushing back. If you push them enough, they'll stop at nothing to push back. What part of this can you not accept as fact?
| and if you feel qualified to defend that assertion, I will be pleased to respond in detail should you start one. |
Why make a new thread about it when this will suffice? We ARE talking about "Muslim jihadists" doing the pushing. Thinking that Muslim jihadists pose a bigger threat to western civilisation than American Christian radicals just shows that some people is buying the conservative Christian propaganda, hook, line, and sinker...
| Suffice to say, my informed opinion is that 9/11 was a consequence of extraordinarily deranged religious zealots blindly following the dictates of a power crazed megalomaniac. |
I haven't seen psychiatric evaluations on Osama Bin Laden, nor the cohorts that executed the WTC-attack, so I couldn't pass judgement on them as you do.
It seems obvious enough that Osama Bin Laden's limit was reached at some point, and he finally decided to push back. And in doing so, make a statement.
| That there are elements of justifiable offence taken to American foreign policy, particularly of the past eight years of Bush, and undoubtedly extending back to the years immediately following WW2, is without question! Iraq is an abomination, given! Cheney and company exploiting Gulf nations for oil riches, absolutely! |
No shit, Sherlock!
| But justification for 9/11 based on Anerica "pushing" too much, I violently object to, and I would very much like to expand upon my objections! Your statement is outrageous if you mean that 9/11 was justified by American meddling in the affairs of various middle eastern nations in order to control and manipulate their oil resources, even though that is all true! |
Did I really say that I thought it was justified?
What if I did, why do you think such a statement is so outrageous?
If a school boy who's being bullied eventually plants his fist in the face of his oppressor, don't you think it serves him right? Haven't the underdog always been celebrated in America, or is it just the movies?
Oh, now I get it. You really do believe that one American is worth 20 Arabs!
| I, for one, will be delighted to respond to you if you care to make an argument justifying terrorism as a response to an abysmally failed foreign policy! |
How about taking responsibility for misdeeds done?
The Golden Rule and all that. It used to be highly regarded by the majority of the American people (as presented by religious doctrine).
"...as long as it serves the purpose of keeping USA on top of the food chain" seen to be a recent amendment to that doctrine.
| Dude, I think you are over-estimating the effect a crashed American economy will have on the World Economy. When the American dollar is worth only the paper it's printed on, commerce will change currency to Euro, Sterling Pound, Yen, or Chinese Yuan. In fact, not long ago I heard on economy news that the fixed exchange rate between Yuan and US Dollar was the only thing preventing a major dive on the value of the dollar. Considering how the Chinese economy is booming, and yesterday's news of the bank crises in America, it's only a matter of time anyway. |
I agree with Dude wholeheartedly regarding this and I am sure that he is fully competent to defend his position. Your currency assumptions are naïve to say the least! If Dude does not care to respond, I will in my next post. |
I'm investing in two China and one India fund for my retirement, so I'm not entirely objective. However, neither are you, having to defend your currency's "honour".
I'm open to examining your arguments though.
I very pointedly asked a question in response to your quote:| Given the current state of American politics and its interference in the affairs of other countries, I'm not sure the rest of the world would be worse off. |
Not sure the world would be worse off if what happened?
You, very obviously, have refused to directly answer my question. Would you please answer it now? |
I already answered you in my last post.
Are you having short term memory problems? Or are you suffering from a case of Morton's Demon? Perhaps you didn't even bother to read through my posts. Because it's there, plain and simple. I presented four scenarios that would potentially change today's situation, where only one involved nukes. I also stated my preferences.
I understand why Dude feels reluctant to engage you. In fact, you might have noticed I haven't jumped at every chance debating you either in the threads where the both of us have posted. The inertia-factor of your mind is enough to make me question usefulness of engagement, on a cost-vs-gain basis. You did spend several pages of pointless debate of how to reproduce an exact replica of Little Boy when no such thing was necessary to produce a viable home made nuke.
| Sorry for being unclear. I meant "teach the American public something". Somehow I got the impression that you were a part of the problem, not the solution. Perhaps it's the fear-mongering Kool-Aid you drank that made me think that. |
I may well be part of the problem. Please clearly delineate what problem you are referring to! |
You still think that Commie Soviet and Commie China poses the great threat to rest of the world. And now, Muslims and Arabs are a part of the Axis Of Evil.
At least you are now working for a good cause politically, which is much better than doing nothing. But running around being afraid of Muslim terrorists and the communists isn't doing you any favours. I even get the impression that you would support a limited nuclear counter-strike. Please tell me it ain't so!
I'll repeat what I've said before: Nations with nuclear capabilities cannot rely on terrorists to mask a pre-emptive strike against the USA. The reason is that American program is too decentralised to be taken out just like that. Especially because the terrorist's goal (targets) is different from the goals of an attacking nation.
If you can't accept my word for it (you haven't even bothered to address those parts in my previous posts so I can't tell what you think), we could discuss that.
Taking out Pentagon would not affect the Internet infrastructure at all, but I guess the servers of most news-organisations will crash under the pressure of the public's curiosity, just like what happened after the WTC-attack. For hours after the attack, CNN and BBC servers were out of commission because too many tried to access the pictures of the towers at the same time.
From (link) | Though two-fifths of the Pent-agon was damaged by the hijacked airliner slamming into it, the military's command and control communications re-mained intact, as did its classified and nonclassified intranets. The Pentagon's private phone system survived, though circuits to the outside world were often unavailable in the Washington area. The main problem, Pentagon officials say, was cellular. |
| Regarding the Kool-Aid, please try to be original enough to either appropriate your own metaphors or invent new ones! |
Sorry for offending your senses, but I used it because it's an accurate metaphor. It also saves time having to come up with new ones. I have better things to do with my time than banging my forehead bloody against a brick wall, as it feels arguing with you.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2008 : 10:09:06 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
| I'm going to stop speaking to you if you continue to behave like marfknox. Just admit that you have lost this argument and move on. Seriously. |
Hoo boy, you are a comedian! Admit defeat while acting like Marfknox! That's an oxymoron on steroids!
Marf is still goring the oxshit left over from our first encounter over six months ago!
I just hate it when you use that word "seriously". Sounds like......irritation! Brrrrrr! As far as "admitting that I had lost this argument," that would be dishonest, because I have not! Nor have you. Eristic debate like this one has been can only be rated on points gained or lost, and who's counting? Dave maybe?
I would be pleased if the subject matter I introduced and your vigorous response to it has made some of the readers here think about possible events that have not been high in the public conciousness since the cold war, with a brief punctuation right after 9/11 And, as always, it's been fun!
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2008 : 12:26:10 [Permalink]
|
You are behaving like marfknox when you realize you are wrong, then shift the context. Just like you did there in the post above this one with "Admit defeat while acting like Marfknox!"
You probably think its clever or amusing, but it is actually intolerably boorish. And stupid.
I cite a nuclear physicist on the simplicity of making a nuclear bomb (if you had access to the uranium), then you shift the context away from that point (without acknowledging that my point is correct) and claim that his opinion on the probability of a nuclear terror attack means that he doesn't support my position? Uh huh. Obviously he doesn't have the same opinion as I do (at the time he wrote the book anyway) of how likely a nuclear attack on the US would be, but that is entirely irrelevant to my other point.
So yes, you could BE marfknox in this thread, since you have adopted her inane style of argument so thoroughly.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2008 : 01:26:51 [Permalink]
|
Doctor Mabuse.....
Thanks for your warm and fuzzy reply. | your "taking advantage of the situation" pre-emptive strike against USA seems even more ludicrous. |
Yes, that's the reason that the US, Russia, and China maintain huge arsenals of nuclear weapons in instant readiness! Also the reason that NORAD uses thousands of personnel 24 hours a day to scan the skies of the world! Including Sweden's!
Yeah, there is no chance of one nuclear power striking another, either preemptive or retaliatory - That's ludicrous!| I got that it was speculative. I question your reason for even suggesting it, because it's so far off the map you're in your neighbours tool-shed. |
Sure, sure, sure, but why did you change my "could" to "would"? | How is it inflammatory? I just stating self-evident facts! |
If your "facts" were indeed "self-evident", the events of 9/11 very probably could have been prevented! I'm sure you were completely aware of Bin Laden's plans well in advance of the event, due to your comprehension of the hatred that he had for the US presence in Saudi Arabia, but somehow you failed to notify anyone else. Certainly no one in the US - public or government - had this prescience or action would have been taken prior to the attack. Perhaps many of our European "allies" were aware of this festering wound, but none acted to notify us. Possibly wanted us to be taught a good lesson!
It is inflammatory because implicit in your statement...| 9/11 should have taught the American public, people will say enough is enough and get back what ever way they can. |
... is the position that premeditated murder of thousands of innocents is morally justified by whatever perceived or actual offenses the United States had inflicted on Arab civilian populations prior to 9/11!
We certainly had not murdered thousands of Arab civilians in cold blood!
| What part of this can you not accept as fact? |
The part that justifies crime for crime - 3000 Americans killed in return for precisely what US destruction of Arab citizenry? 9/11 was barbaric! Please detail equally barbaric acts of the US government taken against Arab citizenry that justifies Bin Laden's "response" | Thinking that Muslim jihadists pose a bigger threat to western civilisation than American Christian radicals just shows that some people is buying the conservative Christian propaganda, hook, line, and sinker... |
I have no idea against whom you are directing this rant, but it most certainly cannot be me. If it is your contention that I am buying Christian propaganda, you obviously cannot read English, although you write it pretty well!
I have never stated nor do I think that "Muslim Jihadists pose a greater threat to western civilization than American fundamentalists, they (the Muslims) simply pose an entirely different and much more immediate threat to America, possibly involving enormous murder and mayhem.
I do not see the 'American Christian fundamentalist threat to Western Civilization.' A significant threat to American democracy, certainly, but not one entailing the deaths of thousands of people, nor a threat to Civilization! Perhaps you could substantiate that manic claim?
| I haven't seen psychi |
| Edited by - bngbuck on 03/20/2008 01:41:22 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2008 : 08:00:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
| your "taking advantage of the situation" pre-emptive strike against USA seems even more ludicrous. |
Yes, that's the reason that the US, Russia, and China maintain huge arsenals of nuclear weapons in instant readiness! Also the reason that NORAD uses thousands of personnel 24 hours a day to scan the skies of the world! Including Sweden's! |
I really don't understand what you are fishing for here. My argument is that this kind of pre-emptive strike against USA will result in a nuclear holocaust because such a terror attack will not disable USA's ability to retaliate. My argument is also that leaders of Russia and China knows that any terrorist nukes will not disable the retaliation potential, and will therefor not launch a strike in the first place.
| Yeah, there is no chance of one nuclear power striking another, either preemptive or retaliatory - That's ludicrous! |
How good I never made any such claim.
There is a chance a nuclear power do make a first strike, but I trust that no world leader truly is that bat-shit insane.
However, I did fully expect an American nuke exploding in Afghanistan in September 2001 though.
If your "facts" were indeed "self-evident", the events of 9/11 very probably could have been prevented! |
But is wasn't. Why? Because there are too many evil people in American politics, and too many ignorant American letting them run rampant. Don't we both agree on this? Didn't CIA have indications of a terrorist attack?
I said that people who are pushed around eventually push back. That is what I claimed was self evident. I never said that it is self-evident that people who are pushed around will fly passenger jets into tall buildings.
| I'm sure you were completely aware of Bin Laden's plans well in advance of the event, due to your comprehension of the hatred that he had for the US presence in Saudi Arabia, but somehow you failed to notify anyone else. |
Now you're being ridiculous.
It is inflammatory because implicit in your statement...| 9/11 should have taught the American public, people will say enough is enough and get back what ever way they can. |
... is the position that premeditated murder of thousands of innocents is morally justified by whatever perceived or actual offenses the United States had inflicted on Arab civilian populations prior to 9/11! |
Don't confuse the messenger with the message.
I'm sure Osama Bin Laden felt very justified. I personally think it was over the top, however, unlike you I have the luxury of seeing this event in a scale of grey. You obviously can only perceive either black or white.
| We certainly had not murdered thousands of Arab civilians in cold blood! |
As for as I know, not even Usama Bin Laden expected such a high casualty-rate. The buildings were not expected to collapse.
| What part of this can you not accept as fact? |
The part that justifies crime for crime - 3000 Americans killed in return for precisely what US destruction of Arab citizenry? 9/11 was barbaric! Please detail equally barbaric acts of the US government taken against Arab citizenry that justifies Bin Laden's "response" |
Osama Bil Laden have explained his reasons for this sent on tape to Al Jazheera. Too bad you weren't paying attention.
Besides, the people killed in the WTC-attack wasn't pre-meditated murder. It was "collateral damage" in the war against American Imperialism.
| If you had lived through the history of WW2, as I did, would you have needed the analysis of a psychiatrist to define Adolf Hitler as a madman as he ordered the killings of millioms of Jews because they were an "inferior race"? You continue to astound me, Mabuse! |
Then a whole generation of Germans astounds you too. And Nazism wasn't limited to Germany either.
So we hit another Goodwin here. What was the point you were trying to make?
If Bin Laden were simply insane, people wouldn't follow him.
With reference to:| "this might seem horribly callous to you, but 100'000 dead Americans from a nuclear strike doesn't seem much more horrible that 100'000+ Iraqi civilian casualties from the American invasion. |
Didn't the Iraq war follow 9/11 by several years? And these 100,000 dead Iraqis were part of Bin Laden's wrath? |
100'000+ Americans weren't killed in the WTC-attack. It's the Iraq invasion that started the 100'000 Iraqi body count. And Bin Laden is fast falling behind in body-count with only some 3-5000 American soldiers in Iraq.
It's a good thing that American Veterans are coming together to protest against the war.
Regarding:| American military is responsible for hundreds of thousand civilians world wide since Korea. Is tit-for-tat really so unfair to you? |
Bin Laden was avenging Korean, and later military civilian casualties (collateral damage in Cheney-speak) from American military activities all over the world? |
As a self-declared representative of the rest of the world that has felt civilian losses du to American interference, Bin Laden certainly have declared himself justified.
You're still not denying that one American equals 20 Arabs in body count.
Also:| A nuke (or several) in USA would be regrettable but unsurprising considering the amount of hatred your country have inspired, especially in the Middle East |
Would you also consider a few nukes on Stockholm and Gothenburg and Lund "regrettable"? |
Sweden doesn't throw it's weight as super power around to force or intimidate other countries to do our bidding. Spanish and English civilians have been target for terrorist attacks. Even Denmark has had a share in violence. Bin Laden have pointed to Sweden as an example of how to conduct international relations, so I'm not in the least worried about terrorist nukes in Sweden. The loss of Gothenburg would indeed be regrettable, because I really like that city. Such nice people living there. 
| Oh, now I get it. You really do believe that one American is worth 20 Arabs! |
As you continue in this vein, Mabuse, I find myself beginning to feel that I wouldn't be too terribly distressed if Russia decided one day to eat Sweden for lunch and proceeded to do just that! |
I'd become another refugee, just like so many refugees that Sweden have accepted into our care. People who are fleeing the mess Americans have created in Iraq.
You said:| Given the current state of American politics and its interference in the affairs of other countries, I'm not sure the rest of the world would be worse off. |
then I asked| Not sure the world would be worse off if what happened? |
Your response now is:| I already answered you in my last post. I presented four scenarios that would potentially change today's situation, where only one involved nukes. |
Here are your statements - presumably your four scenarios: |
Those weren't the ones I was referring to. I thought you said you did read my posts. Here's what I wrote:
| To make this clear to you: USA being unable to bully nations around like it has been doing (destabilising the Middle East for example, or Central America) is what would make the rest of the world better off. How that is accomplished is a completely different matter. I'd rather see a major political change in USA. If else, an economic collapse may do the trick. A disabled military perhaps: without an economy to support the military, it would not last long. A nuke (or several) in USA would be regrettable but unsurprising considering the amount of hatred your country have inspired, especially in the Middle East. |
Four scenarios: 1) Political Change. 2) Economic collapse crippling America's ability to throw it's weight around. 3) Military collapse (presumable from an inability to maintain troops abroad, or inability to economically support it). 4) A nuke that cripple Americas ability to interfere internationally.
I have also stated that I prefer to see a political change in the US. Several times in this thread.
| Now what I get from all of this, Mabuse is that you very strongly comdemn the foreign policy of the United States over the past fifty or sixty years. You want to see that changed. If we returned to a secular government, there would be a better chance for that to happen. However, if our foreign policy does not change (and it very likely will not if McCain is elected) a nuclear strike from Arab terrorists might be the wake-up call that would change our policies of meddling in far-eastern nations' affairs. And that would be justified! |
I normally don't subscribe to the philosophy that the ends justify the means. If a nuke really would cause a change in politics to end the strong arming for political and economical gain, then I would see that as a positive thing. However, it's not the only possible outcome of nuke. It may also reinforce American public's xenophobia making it all worse. I light of this, I do not think it is justified.
Osama Bin Laden didn't order the planes where it would kill the most people. They attacked the symbols of American Imperialism: The World Trade Center and Pentagon.
The symbol of American corporations what is pillaging developing countries for economical gain of owners and executives, and the symbol of American Military Forces which operational collateral damage have been Muslims.
| Or are you suffering from a case of Morton's Demon? |
I have never been correctly accused of confirmation bias. Why do you ask? |
Because you so conveniently missed what I had written. I was guessing you never even saw it. Morton's Demon makes you blind to inconvenient statements.
| Perhaps you didn't even bother to read through my posts. |
If I had not, I could not have posted your quotes |
I was talking about selective reading. You didn't quote where I said "To make this clear to you: USA being unable to bully nations..." but you quoted the paragraph under it, making me believe you skipped my "USA being unable...". Intentionally or otherwise.
| Well, you may not jump to debate, but you certainly seem to jump quickly to insult! |
I guess we can debate forever about who insulted whom first. But I don't think we would reach an agreement.
| I probably would support such a strike if it was retaliatory, limited, precisely directed and had the concurrence of the Congress! |
So with your hardened heart, you're not really different from me at all! Especially in the light of how many innocent civillians that will be murdered by that retaliation. 
| Nations with nuclear capabilities cannot rely on terrorists to mask a pre-emptive strike against the USA. The reason is that American program is too decentralised to be taken out just like that. |
I have never stated that I thought one, or ten, fission bombs could "take us out" if you mean destroy the functionality of the US. |
I never believed you stated such either. I'm simply finding myself again and again disputing that any nation would make such an attack. And I have repeatedly tried to explain to you why a masked pre-emptive strike is out of the question. If I can't make you understand why I think it is ridiculous, we won't get anywhere in this discussion.
Perhaps if some other SFN-member explained it to you.
| It could be seriously damaged, but there is enough decentralization that some degree of functionality could be restored even after a D.C.attack. Unfortunately, there is a great deal of concentration in D.C. and it is very vulnerable. |
The civilian government, yes. But the military is decentralised with a very structured chain of command. A nuke in D.C. would not prevent USA from launching a nuclear counter-attack.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2008 : 14:51:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Yes, Mabuse, I would get a strong impression from reading those seven separate statements from you that you feel that Bin Laden was justified in carrying out the 9/11 attack! |
You know there's a difference between "justifiable" and "understandable," right?
For example, I can understand why a guy in a bar might attack me with a tire iron after I flirted with his girl, but that doesn't mean that I think such an overreaction is justified.
Even that guy, afterwards, might agree that he lost control, and that his actions weren't justifiable. Or he might claim that they were. What he thinks is irrelevant to the point, which is that even in today's enlightened age, I should understand that violence could be a natural consequence of my actions.
I don't have to agree with a position in order to understand it, and neither does Mab. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Jan
New Member
USA
5 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2008 : 15:33:20 [Permalink]
|
| According to the Old Farmer's Almanac the Swallows traditionally return to San Juan Capistrano, California. Any Luck? |
|
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2008 : 15:57:26 [Permalink]
|
Did anyone mention Joseph Cirincione's book "Bomb Scare - The History & Future of Nuclear Weapons"? If not, here's a Google page of selections.
|
Diversity, independence, innovation and imagination are progressive concepts ultimately alien to the conservative mind.
"TAX AND SPEND" IS GOOD! (TAX: Wealthy corporations who won't go poor even after taxes. SPEND: On public works programs, education, the environment, improvements.) |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2008 : 16:18:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Jan
According to the Old Farmer's Almanac the Swallows traditionally return to San Juan Capistrano, California. Any Luck?
|
Yes, but what does it say about the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2008 : 00:53:00 [Permalink]
|
Dr. Mabuse.....
| I really don't understand what you are fishing for here. |
Not fishing nor trolling! Simply making the self-evident statement that three huge superpowers - United States. Russia, and China - would not spend a cumulative trillions of dollars on gigantic stockpiles of nuclear weapons if there was little or no possibility of a nuclear strike! MAD still trumps! | My argument is that this kind of pre-emptive strike against USA will result in a nuclear holocaust because such a terror attack will not disable USA's ability to retaliate. |
This statement makes no sense to me. It appears to be self-contradictory! | My argument is also that leaders of Russia and China knows that any terrorist nukes will not disable the retaliation potential, and will therefor not launch a strike in the first place. |
This appears to contradict what you said above, so I assume you made a typo in omitting the word "not". I know nothing about these matters, because I never make typos!
All I can say here is that one would hope that Russian and Chinese leaders would understand that disabling Washington would not disable our retaliatory ability - as I acknowledged on 3/17 here:| any nation not associated with the terrorists but mistakenly thinking that the US was too crippled to retaliate. thus engaging in a nuclear attack on the U.S.! I said...We would be able to unleash nuclear hell times 1000 on ......whom? And......why? |
| There is a chance a nuclear power do make a first strike, but I trust that no world leader truly is that bat-shit insane. |
Hitler was. Krushchev almost was, then he backed down. I remember Stalin. I am totally convinced that HE would have nuked the rest of the world if he had possessed nukes. No American president will have the blind trust that a nuclear first strike on the US is so unlikely that it is nearly an impossibility!| However, I did fully expect an American nuke exploding in Afghanistan in September 2001 though |
So did I, and a lot of other very astute obsevers of American politics and trigger-happy foreign policy. I have no idea why cooler heads prevailed! | Because there are too many evil people in American politics, and too many ignorant American letting them run rampant. Don't we both agree on this? Didn't CIA have indications of a terrorist attack? |
Most emphatically, Yes! we agree! As to the CIA, if they did, they aren't talking - that kind of thing could lead to Bush's impeachment! If they didn't it is just another indication of massive imcompetence? This is an interesting question, as it touches on so-called "conspiracy" theories of the cause of 9/11. What is your opinion - did the CIA know and thus did Bush/Cheney know of the imminence of 9/11 before the event? | I said that people who are pushed around eventually push back. That is what I claimed was self evident. I never said that it is self-evident that people who are pushed around will fly passenger jets into tall buildings. |
That is a refreshing re-statement of what I thought you were saying earlier! Thank you! bngbuck said I'm sure you were completely aware of Bin Laden's plans well in advance of the event, due to your comprehension of the hatred that he had for the US presence in Saudi Arabia, but somehow you failed to notify anyone else.
Now you're being ridiculous. |
No, I'm being highly sarcastic! Don't confuse the messenger with the message.
|
Only when the messenger's message is his own! | I'm sure Osama Bin Laden felt very justified. I personally think it was over the top |
No Shit, Sherlock! | I have the luxury of seeing this event in a scale of grey. You obviously can only perceive either black or white. |
You omitted colors. Specifically red | As for as I know, not even Usama Bin Laden expected such a high casualty-rate. The buildings were not expected to collapse. |
Again, you brush against conspiracy theory. I know nothing about expectations of the buildings collapsing, but there certainly has been a lot of controversy after the fact as to the nature of the collapse! Everything I have been able to research on this matter points to a heat-transfer procession from the top-down that progressively softened the steel supporting structure in a manner causing the building to implode. I understand that you are an engineer. What is your opinion? Osama Bil Laden have explained his reasons for this sent on tape to Al Jazheera. Too bad you weren't paying attention
|
That snipe was inappropriate,Mabuse, I was paying meticulous attention!| December 27, 2001"Terrorism against America deserves to be praised because it was a response to injustice, aimed at forcing America to stop its support for Israel, which kills our people," |
and| November 2004 He said that the attacks were carried out because, "We are a free people who do not accept injustice, and we want to regain the freedom of our nation." |
and | 1998 fatwa In the fatwa, Bin Laden directed his followers "to kill Americans anywhere". He also outlined his objections to American foreign policy towards Israel, as well as U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people, the ensuing sanctions against Iraq, as well as the continued presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia after the Persian Gulf War. The fatwa also specifically condemns the U.S. for "plundering" the resources of the region, oppressing the people by supporting abusive regimes in the region, and dictating policy to legitimate leaders. It also opposes the presence of U.S. military bases and installations in the region, especially on Muslim holy land, which are used to "threaten" Muslim countries, while fomenting disunity and strife. By a similar token, it decries the continued refusal to address the occupation of Palestine. |
And there is much more!Besides, the people killed in the WTC-attack wasn't pre-meditated murder. It was "collateral damage" in the war against American Imperialism.
|
In my book, "collateral damage" is bullshit, pure and simple! Murder is murder! And when we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki back in 1945, all I could think of for weeks was "mass murder!" I still feel that way! | Then a whole generation of Germans astounds you too. |
Absolutely, in exactly the same way that I am astounded by a generation of bible-thumping Americans that elected the inutterable mother fucker Bush! You astound me, Mabuse, because you certainly do not appear to be of the soporific sheep mentality that apparently a slight majority (perhaps now minority) of Americans seem to be! Bin Laden, like Dick Cheney, is a psychopath!| What was the point you were trying to make? If Bin Laden were simply insane, people wouldn't follow him. |
"Insanity" is not relevant, that is a legal or a medical condition not properly describing the mentalities of modern monsters like Hitler, Stalin, Sadaam Hussein, Bin Laden and Dick Cheney! Psychopathic sociopaths that millions of people have followed as rulers!
In the context of was "9/11 justified?", you said| this might seem horribly callous to you, but 100'000 dead Americans from a nuclear strike doesn't seem much more horrible that 100'000+ Iraqi civilian casualties from the American invasion. |
! I responded that in the macabre "tit for tat" body count scenario of Bin Laden wishing to even the score of Arabs killed to Americans killed; you (or he) could not refer to the body count in Iraq, as it happened after 9/11! | And Bin Laden is fast falling behind in body-count with only some 3-5000 American soldiers in Iraq. |
But you certainly can't count these Iraqi bodies as rationalization for his attack, as they occured long after the planning for 9/11! | It's a good thing that American Veterans are coming together to protest against the war. |
Uh,....yeah, it is! But the relevance to our discussion.....?| As a self-declared representative of the rest of the world that has felt civilian losses due to American interference, Bin Laden certainly have declared himself justified |
Yes, he is a psychopath! And a religious fanatic! But I have now heard you state that you do not think he was justified, and I am glad! That he rationalized his motive is obvious. So did Hitler! You're still not denying that one American equals 20 Arabs in body count.
|
Where in the Holy Hell that you got the idea that I stated or believed or was in any way associated with the idea that one American equals 20 Arabs, or Nigerians, or Swedes, or any other nationality or ethnicity or color or ANYTHING! - I cannot even fathom a guess! That bullshit is extremely insulting because it implies that I am a racial, or ethnic, or national origin bigot! I would really like to know what the hell you are talking about!
| Bin Laden have pointed to Sweden as an example of how to conduct international relations, so I'm not in the least worried about terrorist nukes in Sweden. |
What efforts has Sweden made to negotiate a "terrorist truce" with Bin Laden with respect to his world wide terrorism efforts? It's obvious that Bush-Cheney-Rice do not even understand what diplomacy is, and we're not going to get any relief in that area until 2009, if the US does get a new and better administration and Congress! It would seem that a calm, rational, peace-oriented nation like Sweden might be able to initiate at least a dialog with Bin Laden - completely aside from US Bush bloviation or the largely impotent U.N. Also, possibly with regard to the festering Iran situation! | To make this clear to you: USA being unable to bully nations around like it has been doing (destabilising the Middle East for example, or Central America) is what would make the rest of the world better off. |
Yeah, I got all that the first time around. But your statement was | I'm not sure the rest of the world would be worse off. |
My question was| Not sure the world would be worse off if what happened? |
Your four answers:1) Political Change.
2) Economic collapse crippling America's ability to throw it's weight around.
3) Military collapse (presumable from an inability to maintain troops abroad, or inability to economically support it)
4) A nuke that cripple Americas ability to interfere internationally.
|
So, it follows that you made four statements, namely:
1)I'm not sure the rest of the world would be worse off if (there was)political change (in America)
This of course is what most Americans (according to the polls)desperately want and will very likely happen this fall! The world and the U.S. will indeed be agreat deal better off! I am quite sure that this will improve the current situation!
2)I'm not sure the rest of the world would be worse off if there was economic collapse crippling America's ability to throw it's weight around. As Dude accurately pointed out, this would be an economic catastrophe for the rest of the world as well as for America!
3)I'm not sure the rest of the world would be worse off if there was an American military collapse (presumable from an inability to maintain troops abroad, or inability to economically support it)I am certain that an American military collapse would embolden Russia to adopt a much more aggressive posture in reconstructing the Soviet Union; China, at the very least, would likely retake Taiwan by force, North Korea might unleash it's massive artillery aimed at South Korea, and terrorists would be emboldened to proliferate and expand exponentially!
4)I'm not sure the rest of the world would be worse off it there was a nuke that cripple Americas ability to interfere internationally.There would be massive public demand for retaliation. As you and I have accurately pointed out, the military would not be badly damaged. The US would search for a target to retaliate against, and would eventually find one. The retaliation would very likely be nuclear in nature. The nuclear genie would indeed be out of the bottle! There would, at the very least be a return to the MAD days of thr cold war. There would be a massive military buildup in the US, including a draft, and other major nations would respond in kind! All hell would be on the verge of breaking out!
| I have also stated that I prefer to see a political change in the US. Several times in this thread |
We agree totally in this respect. My opinion is that it is the only way that true diplomacy can begin to be applied to the problems of foreign policy!
| I normally don't subscribe to the philosophy that the ends justify the means. If a nuke really would cause a change in politics to end the strong arming for political and economical gain, then I would see that as a positive thing. |
I see any kind of "nuke" exploding in America as an unmitigated disaster, leading to all kinds of unintended conswquences! Number two or Number three above, as bad as they are, would be vastly preferable alternatives!| However, it's not the only possible outcome of nuke. It may also reinforce American public's xenophobia making it all worse. I light of this, I do not think it is justified. |
I heartily endorse this statement, I am happy to hear you change your emphasis on highly destructive and disruptive possibilities as the way to change America's disastrous foreign policy! | Osama Bin Laden didn't order the planes where it would kill the most people. They attacked the symbols of American Imperialism: The World Trade Center and Pentagon. The symbol of American corporations what is pillaging developing countries for economical gain of owners and executives, and the symbol of American Military Forces which operational collateral damage have been Muslims. |
This may well be true, if your contention that Osama did not intend to take the towers down is true! As it turned out, the deaths of 3000 was perceived by the American public as intentional, and led directly to the enormous exacerbation of affront to the Arab world that Bush and Company have perpetuated. Another example of the Law of Unintended Consequences! | Because you so conveniently missed what I had written. I was guessing you never even saw it. Morton's Demon makes you blind to inconvenient statements |
I think I'll ignore that, although it would be extremely easy to point out examples of what you have missed of my posts. My lack of comprehension is matched only by your failure to communicate!| I guess we can debate forever about who insulted whom first. But I don't think we would reach an agreement. |
My personal view is that it is great fun for a while, but eventually, it gets tiresome! But lack of attention to either parry or thrust is not the path to touché! | So with your hardened heart, you're not really different from me at all! Especially in the light of how many innocent civillians that will be murdered by that retaliation. |
I don't think we are all that different, but not with respect to a "hardened heart" If your nation suffered a nuclear strike or two, I think the basic biological categorical imperative of self-preservation would instantly dominate all philosophical considerations of "hardened hearts" or the like. "Get those motherfuckers before they launch another one" is about all you, or I, or damn near anybody in any nation would say! Nobody turns the other cheek to a nuclear attack! If an intruder has wounded you in the shoulder with one shot and is aiming at your heart with the second one, you shoot him in the head - if you have a gun! | I'm simply finding myself again and again disputing that any nation would make such an attack. |
Your youthful optimism is refreshing! I certainly hope with all my heart that you are correct! Sixty-plus years of observing man's foibles - both in the third and in the first person - has indeed made me cynical! If I can't make you understand why I think it is ridiculous, we won't get anywhere in this discussion. Perhaps if some other SFN-member explained it to you.
|
Not gonna' happen, Mabuse It is not ridiculous, it is indeed possible! I sincerely hope it does not become probable!
If the Democrats fuck up sufficiently to give this election to McCain, I truly think that it will become probable!| But the military is decentralised with a very structured chain of command. A nuke in D.C. would not prevent USA from launching a nuclear counter-attack. |
There is no doubt in my mind concerning this, and I have expressed that several times in this thread!
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2008 : 12:05:36 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
| You know there's a difference between "justifiable" and "understandable," right? |
Of course!
| I don't have to agree with a position in order to understand it, and neither does Mab. |
Of course not!
But Mabuse said "I'm not sure the rest of the world would be worse off if there was a nuke that crippled America's ability to interfere internationally." This does not translate to Mabuse understands that the rest of the world would be better off if the US was nuked: it translates to him believing that maybe the world would be better off if the US was nuked.
I did not have it wrong, he has, in his later post, stated that he now feels that 9/11 was not justified, and I have commended him on it!
I feel that Mabuse, intentionally or not, overstated his passion for change in American foreign policy, and "critical thinking" (which has, in my opinion, it's limits) demands that his position be as clearly stated as possible. The idea that the United States, and the rest of the world, might somehow be improved by the aggressive explosion of a nuclear bomb in Washington D.C., is to say the least, controversial!
(To say nothing of exactly how a nuclear explosion would lessen this nations's "ability to interfere internationally"! My guess is that there would be a great deal more "interference" if such an attack took place)
I have heard you comment on the need to "call out" those whose opinions may need clarification of expression. That was my effort here! And Mabuse, to his credit, did indeed clarify his position!
Dr. Mabuse offered four scenarios that he felt might improve the condition of the "rest of the world". Three of them involved more or less catastrophic events within the United States; 1)economic collapse, 2)military collapse, and 3)the detonation of a nuclear bomb, presumably in a metropolitan area (the District of Columbia, specifically)
His "preferred" alternative was political change in the U.S., which to me is, of course, the only acceptable one of the four. The nuclear bomb alternative would undoubtedly result in an enormous loss of civilian lives and great damage to the operation of the government. Possibly as important, I feel it would increase the probability of more nuclear bombs being deployed in different parts of the world, as well as in the United States.
Both of the two other unacceptable alternatives would likely result in unfortunate consequences for the "rest of the world" greater than the presumed damage from failed foreign policy, but a nuke in D.C. appears to me to be over the top, both from a humanitarian viewpoint and also from a purely practical one!
If everything within the Beltway in Washington was totally vaporised in a single instant of nuclear explosion, the U.S. military would still be completely capable of sending a barrage of fusion bombs to any place on the surface of the earth! And there would be many demanding that we do just that!
Mabuse obviously has reflected on these possibilities and curbed his enthusiasm, as he says in his last post.....| I normally don't subscribe to the philosophy that the ends justify the means. If a nuke really would cause a change in politics to end the strong arming for political and economical gain, then I would see that as a positive thing. However, it's not the only possible outcome of nuke. It may also reinforce American public's xenophobia making it all worse. I light of this, I do not think it is justified. |
Yes, Hiroshima and Nagasaki did end the war with Japan, which was a "positive thing", but......(LOUC)!
Anyway, I see Mabuse's current position as progress!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2008 : 13:23:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Dave.....
| You know there's a difference between "justifiable" and "understandable," right? |
Of course!
| I don't have to agree with a position in order to understand it, and neither does Mab. |
Of course not!
But Mabuse said "I'm not sure the rest of the world would be worse off if there was a nuke that crippled America's ability to interfere internationally." This does not translate to Mabuse understands that the rest of the world would be better off if the US was nuked: it translates to him believing that maybe the world would be better off if the US was nuked. |
And I believe that the world would be better off if Pat Robertson took an axe to the head, and that such an action would be unjustifiable. The goal doesn't justify the means.I did not have it wrong, he has, in his later post, stated that he now feels that 9/11 was not justified, and I have commended him on it!
I feel that Mabuse, intentionally or not, overstated his passion for change in American foreign policy, and "critical thinking" (which has, in my opinion, it's limits) demands that his position be as clearly stated as possible. The idea that the United States, and the rest of the world, might somehow be improved by the aggressive explosion of a nuclear bomb in Washington D.C., is to say the least, controversial! |
Indeed, but as you should know, the end doesn't necessarily justify the means. It was obvious to me that Mab was expressing frustration.| I have heard you comment on the need to "call out" those whose opinions may need clarification of expression. That was my effort here! And Mabuse, to his credit, did indeed clarify his position! |
Yes, but "calling out" usually doesn't involve the taking of statements which indicate understanding and attributing to them a belief in justification. At least give a guy the benefit of a doubt by saying "you don't mean you think it's justified, do you?"Dr. Mabuse offered four scenarios that he felt might improve the condition of the "rest of the world". Three of them involved more or less catastrophic events within the United States; 1)economic collapse, 2)military collapse, and 3)the detonation of a nuclear bomb, presumably in a metropolitan area (the District of Columbia, specifically)
His "preferred" alternative was political change in the U.S., which to me is, of course, the only acceptable one of the four. The nuclear bomb alternative would undoubtedly result in an enormous loss of civilian lives and great damage to the operation of the government. Possibly as important, I feel it would increase the probability of more nuclear bombs being deployed in different parts of the world, as well as in the United States.
Both of the two other unacceptable alternatives would likely result in unfortunate consequences for the "rest of the world" greater than the presumed damage from failed foreign policy, but a nuke in D.C. appears to me to be over the top, both from a humanitarian viewpoint and also from a purely practical one! |
Seems to me that the first three would all result - for better or worse - the "preferred" alternative, but perhaps not in the direction that Mab hopes (as he recognizes). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
"Muslim jihadists"
