|
|
#41
03-22-2003, 01:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: So what if the U.S. uses WMD?
The point Jimbo is that once you say its OK for us to use that type of logic, you concede that its OK for others to use it as well.
|
|
#43
03-22-2003, 02:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: So what if the U.S. uses WMD?
The point Jimbo is that once you say its OK for us to use that type of logic, you concede that its OK for others to use it as well. Sure they can use the same logic Clarkmeister, it is just that they may find themselves quite a bit less successful in the implementation phase than they expected. Take professional golf as an example. Mich can say he is neither intimidated by nor an inferior player to Tiger. However when he must back up his words his atomic bombs are just too small to do as much damage as Tigers.
Yes in today's society we set the rules and others either accept them or suffer the consequences. Anyone who does not understand why is pooly informed. Now as to whether or not this is fair is certainly open to debate but as to whether or not it is factual is not.
|
|
#45
03-24-2003, 09:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: So what if the U.S. uses WMD?
"Exactly what the leader of North Korea thinks."
Fortunately, our idea of a pre-emptive strike against North Korea would likely entail merely taking out the Pyongbyon reactor and their 2 or 3 nuclear weapons, and privately telling Kim Jong-il to sit down and shutup while this is happening or else. North Korea's idea of a pre-emptive strike, should they become capable of it, would probably include taking out all of our nuclear bases and major cities, as well as Seoul, Tokyo and our Pacific Rim bases. Isn't it nice to know that overwhelming force happens to be on the side of rationality and decency at this stage in history?
|
|
#47
03-24-2003, 11:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: So what if the U.S. uses WMD?
"Isn't it nice to know that overwhelming force happens to be on the side of rationality and decency at this stage in history? "
It certainly would be [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]
|
|
#48
03-24-2003, 11:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Critical thinking
[Before you read very far, you should understand that I am extremely upset about this war. To the point that I'm considering participating in public protests against it.]
David and Mason spend a lot of time talking about unclear thinking. It seems to me that the behavior of our government is exactly that. If we take Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/et. al. at their word, then they are pre-emptively striking a bad regime that poses a threat to us and its neighbors. As Clarkmeister said, that's what the leader of North Korea thinks. And he's (terrifyingly enough) crazier and more paranoid than our own leaders. Or, the best example I've heard so far - why shouldn't India nuke Pakistan in case Pakistan is getting ready to nuke them? The truth to tell, I don't take the White House Hawks [1] at their word. I think this is about oil and/or monetary gain and/or 9/11 revenge and/or power and/or who knows what all else. But it is so depressing to see that most of the American public doesn't see the horrifying implications of world-wide acceptance (and adoption) of Bush's stated policy. This is all aside the unspeakable crime of blowing up completely innocent civilians in a war that their country didn't start. I remember how we used to laugh grimly at the reports from Vietnam: "We had to destroy that village to save it," they said, and they thought that made sense. Regards, Lee [1] Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz....
|
|
#49
03-24-2003, 12:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Critical thinking
Lee you wrote "But it is so depressing to see that most of the American public doesn't see the horrifying implications of world-wide acceptance (and adoption) of Bush's stated policy.
From my perspective is is equally depressing that you and a minority of others see this policy in the light you portray.
|
|
#50
03-24-2003, 01:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Critical thinking
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
