[Old Man G Funk]

i never said that.

You practically did.

Chang asked you, "Are you saying the only reason society doesn't descend into chaos is because people are afraid of the law?"

You answered, "Yes."

Even if it is not all, it's scary to think that you believe that society is sufficiently cowed only by fear of laws to make it manageable. Are you not frightened of those that are only allowing you to live because they don't want to get caught? Are you asserting that the majority of the unwashed masses are in this group of murderers waiting to happen? Or, are you agreeing with Chang that it's a small percentage of the population?

Societies aren't born of some Machiavellian fear of the law. If that were the case, shouldn't we think that the most draconian laws would yield the most obedient people? Is that what we've seen throughout history? Even if it does lead to obedience, is that what you want? Does obedience to law = freedom?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

like i said. you dont actually need to resort to genocide. you didnt need a genocide of americans or soviets to pre-empt a preemptive strike that never happened!.
as we talk people are dying already. thats pretty much a cost you can chalk up to our inaction.

And what happens when your bluff gets called, as you know it will. I've asked you this many times, yet have not gotten an answer. If you can not answer this simple question, then your plan can not get off the ground.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

You practically did.

Chang asked you, "Are you saying the only reason society doesn't descend into chaos is because people are afraid of the law?"

You answered, "Yes."

Even if it is not all, it's scary to think that you believe that society is sufficiently cowed only by fear of laws to make it manageable. Are you not frightened of those that are only allowing you to live because they don't want to get caught? Are you asserting that the majority of the unwashed masses are in this group of murderers waiting to happen? Or, are you agreeing with Chang that it's a small percentage of the population?

am not saying a majority of the people are murderers waiting to happen. but petty thieves, corrupt mofos, blatant a-holes?? yes.

and i dont fear the only reason they dont kill me its because of jail. actually, am kinda grateful am protected by that actually.
i trust more they´ll do whatever is the most beneficial to them, rather that to trust their word they wont kill me.

Societies aren't born of some Machiavellian fear of the law. If that were the case, shouldn't we think that the most draconian laws would yield the most obedient people? Is that what we've seen throughout history? Even if it does lead to obedience, is that what you want? Does obedience to law = freedom?

i´ve covered that i think by saying "totalitarian rule of law does mean mayhem" too.
i dont want that... like i said, rule of law is no guarantee of the wellbeing of a a society.... but no rule of law pretty much means no wellbeing can be achieved.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

And what happens when your bluff gets called, as you know it will. I've asked you this many times, yet have not gotten an answer. If you can not answer this simple question, then your plan can not get off the ground.

i think i´ve covered this.
assuming you bluff gets called. (f gets called, then it sucked actually).

just do exactly what israel did, or the US is doing in iraq.. but cut the PR crap.
if you are going to do that anyways (emphasis on anyways, because dont fool ourselves, you know those arent the last times that is going to happen), at least get the most mileage out of it.
or be even more "humane" and call for evacuation before.

or you can do nothing, but some PR "in the name of mercy" handwashing,... and nobody died, the only thing hurt will be your pride...
it just isnt any worse than the situation by default. and given the rate of deaths. taking a shot wouldnt be as expensive as compared as the ongoing price

 

[Old Man G Funk]

i´ve covered that i think by saying "totalitarian rule of law does mean mayhem" too.
i dont want that... like i said, rule of law is no guarantee of the wellbeing of a a society.... but no rule of law pretty much means no wellbeing can be achieved.

But, if laws are to cow the populace into behaving as you have implied, then why do totalitarian systems not work?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

just do exactly what israel did, or the US is doing in iraq.. but cut the PR crap.

So, you want us to follow through on our threats? If we threaten to wipe out a town, then we do it. Great.

or be even more "humane" and call for evacuation before.

Call for evacuation? Then your threat suxors, because the "bad" guys can get away during the evac. So, it doesn't work in this instance either.

or you can do nothing, but some PR "in the name of mercy" handwashing,... and nobody died, the only thing hurt will be your pride...

And the fact that people are p.o.ed that you have threatened to kill them and have used their lives as pawns. But, what do the unwashed masses care?

it just isnt any worse than the situation by default. and given the rate of deaths. taking a shot wouldnt be as expensive as compared as the ongoing price

Yes, because one more time I have to point out that you are asking us to use terror tactics. We fight the terrorists because we correctly condemn them for using terror tactics. When we turn around and do the exact same thing, it makes us no better than them, and we lose the moral upper hand. We become the terrorists, which means we would have to fight ourselves if we really want to stamp out terrorism.

Alexis, face it, your bluff won't work. It will be seen for what it is, empty rhetoric. If you do follow through on it, then you commit yourself to genocide. If you don't, then you simply make yourself into a terrorist. Some choice there, huh?

 

[RenegadeRick]

This is why I love America and what it stands for. You crackheads can come on here and bitch about all this that you want to. The only reason this is possible is due to the men and women risking their lives for you. How many of you cracks have actually spent time in the military and somewhat have a gist of what is going on? Probably 1 or 2...most of you just listen to CNN and other jackbag news reports. Keep on arguing and debating. I think its funny to see how stupidity has evolved over the years.

Hey I got a jackbag news report for ya. It is from CNN no less. It tells me what our troops are doing in Iraq. I think you will like it.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/15/iraq.slaying.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

 

[$tinkle]

Hey I got a jackbag news report for ya. It is from CNN no less. It tells me what our troops are doing in Iraq. I think you will like it.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/15/iraq.slaying.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

they could have gotten away with this if they weren't so stupid.

now they'll go from being stuck in iraq to stuck in a mil brig.

 

[RenegadeRick]

they could have gotten away with this if they weren't so stupid.

now they'll go from being stuck in iraq to stuck in a mil brig.

That is why you NEVER talk to the man when he is shaking you down. It doesn't matter what carp the man is trying to tell you they have on you. If they had the evidence, they wouldn't be trying to get you to confess.

Of course, they could always torture a confession out of you, heck, it is the American way.

 

[ElTORO]

What do you know another Bash Bush art.

I'm so sick of the bash Bush people. Come on!! I'm so over it already it dosn't DO ANYTHING to blame bush.

I don't blame him anymore, for ANYTHING!! I blame the AMERICAN PEOPLE!!!!! My country men!!! Everyone bashes the guy but when it finaly comes down to it EVERYONE VOTED FOR THE DUMBASS TWICE. "I want him to finsh the war, have him finsh what he started." That was the main reason for the re-election. Well not everyone MOST voted for the dumbass. Now a year after that everyone is this war is wrong Dam Bush Dam Bush!!!! He lied to me wha wha wha cry cry cry!!!

We put him in power!!! We had a vote even though it was F-ed up. But the majority won and the person WE thought we wanded runing & makeing desicions for our county is President. So you better deal with it for another 700 days or just get the F out!!

No more, NO BUSH!! I say no more dumbass hicks get to vote.

Rant over!!

 

[Reactor]

Will you think the same once they push the button on a nuke smuggled in a major U.S. city? and the thousands from 9/11 become millions, we must do what we have to now to make sure this day never ever becomes a reality. I work in the intel world and believe me their is some scary stuff out their you will never ever ever know about.

That would be tragically funny....if it weren't a tragedy.

As a former member of the intelligence world, I am ashamed that people like you are even employed as janitors. You make American intelligence an oxy-moron, and a joke to everyone outside the US. Your nebulous claims are meaningless, the threats you are refering have largely been around for many years, and successfully combated. The remainder aren't new, just our knowledge of them is.

Necon idiots have played right into the terrorists hands, giving them everything they want. Sure some of them were killed, but each one killed was replaced by a hundred. You've taken a country ruled by a brutal dictator who was no threat to America and turned it into a terrorist breading ground, right in the middle of the world's oil supply. And more, it's headed for civil war like a freight train filled with dynamite and a stuck throttle.

Interrogation tactics used by the US military, and some intelligence agencies have prompted outrage further inflaming the arab world and adding to the terrorists ranks.

 

[Reactor]

What do you know another Bash Bush art.

I'm so sick of the bash Bush people. Come on!! I'm so over it already it dosn't DO ANYTHING to blame bush.
~....~
I Everyone bashes the guy but when it finaly comes down to it EVERYONE VOTED FOR THE DUMBASS TWICE. "

Actually it was just over 50% of the country that voted for him, In both elections a handfull of votes tin the right state would have swung the election the other way.

 

[Dartman]

Unfortunately my daughter is going to live in it. I served in the military and I never thought I see the day when an american president condones torture, kidnapping, lying to congress, avoids due process, wiretapping, and is seen by an ally as being more dangerous than a certifiably insane foreign leader with nuclear weapons.

Good point. Didn't we swear to defend this country against all enemies...foreign and DOMESTIC!

 

[3D.]

Everyone bashes the guy but when it finaly comes down to it EVERYONE VOTED FOR THE DUMBASS TWICE.

We put him in power!!!

Did we really?

I say no more dumbass hicks get to vote.

Did you vote for him?

 

[ElTORO]

Did we really?


Did you vote for him?

What are you trying to say I'm a hick

and No.

 

[3D.]

Glad to hear it:biggrin:

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

So, you want us to follow through on our threats? If we threaten to wipe out a town, then we do it. Great.

honestly, cutting the PR, would it be any worse than what is already standard procedure?
i dont think its moral to send your own to die, when you have other means to achieve pretty much the same thing. i dont think its moral that "morality" should require you to do token sacrifices in the quest for morality itself.

Call for evacuation? Then your threat suxors, because the "bad" guys can get away during the evac. So, it doesn't work in this instance either.
And the fact that people are p.o.ed that you have threatened to kill them and have used their lives as pawns. But, what do the unwashed masses care?

at this point, it doesnt matter much if they get away. what it matters more in the long run is if they stop attacking. the chance that happens, even out of fear, would be without a doubt, an improvement.
plus from an utilitarian pov, making that "adjustment" on current morality.. would counter a lot of the incentives of using terror tactics in the first place, making it much less attractive, and likely much less used.

Yes, because one more time I have to point out that you are asking us to use terror tactics. We fight the terrorists because we correctly condemn them for using terror tactics. When we turn around and do the exact same thing, it makes us no better than them, and we lose the moral upper hand. We become the terrorists, which means we would have to fight ourselves if we really want to stamp out terrorism.

i dont agree on that. i dont think you are "bad" or "inmoral" for using "terror tactics" in response to "terror tactics", in the same way you arent "bad" or "inmoral" for killing somebody who is about to kill you.
i think the status of "bad" or "inmoral" should only be granted to the first one who introduces that tactic into the playing field.

Alexis, face it, your bluff won't work. It will be seen for what it is, empty rhetoric. If you do follow through on it, then you commit yourself to genocide. If you don't, then you simply make yourself into a terrorist. Some choice there, huh?

if olmert today, thru a carefully worded statement, pretty much lays down that the past intervention (and worse) in lebanon will from now on standard operation anytime a rockets hits israel....
do you really think people will take it as nothing? or they will just laugh at the news?

 

[sshappy]

honestly, cutting the PR, would it be any worse than what is already standard procedure?
i dont think its moral to send your own to die, when you have other means to achieve pretty much the same thing. i dont think its moral that "morality" should require you to do token sacrifices in the quest for morality itself.

So you think it is morally more acceptable to kill innocent civilians rather than risk losing some of your own soldiers in a more targetted action?

at this point, it doesnt matter much if they get away. what it matters more in the long run is if they stop attacking. the chance that happens, even out of fear, would be without a doubt, an improvement.
plus from an utilitarian pov, making that "adjustment" on current morality.. would counter a lot of the incentives of using terror tactics in the first place, making it much less attractive, and likely much less used.

So far it has never worked, unless you can find an example?

i dont agree on that. i dont think you are "bad" or "inmoral" for using "terror tactics" in response to "terror tactics", in the same way you arent "bad" or "inmoral" for killing somebody who is about to kill you.
i think the status of "bad" or "inmoral" should only be granted to the first one who introduces that tactic into the playing field.

So morality is purely based on order? There are some problems with that..

How far back do you want to trace?
Is scale irrelevant?
How many times can you respond in kind and keep the moral high-ground?

if olmert today, thru a carefully worded statement, pretty much lays down that the past intervention (and worse) in lebanon will from now on standard operation anytime a rockets hits israel....
do you really think people will take it as nothing? or they will just laugh at the news?

Well, considering that Israel's past interventions in Lebanon have been little short of disastrous in terms of both achieving stated aims and in terms of how Israel is viewed throughout the world I think you will find him increasingly less likely to make such threats and increasingly less credible if he does.

Prior to the 1982 invasion of Lebanon Isreal was seen as having a robust and fair military morality. The debacle in Lebanon saw an end to that and the beginnings of awareness in the West that perhaps the Arabs and Palestinians did have some valid rights and greivances.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

So you think it is morally more acceptable to kill innocent civilians rather than risk losing some of your own soldiers in a more targetted action?

i´d rather see it as total numbers VS total numbers.
dead people is dead people.

So far it has never worked, unless you can find an example?

the peace thru fear of total anhilation?. the cold war, wwii.

So morality is purely based on order? There are some problems with that..
How far back do you want to trace?
Is scale irrelevant?
How many times can you respond in kind and keep the moral high-ground?

how far back? how about 1 iteration. scale relevant? i´d say yes.
how many times you can respond and keep a moral high ground? what the infatuation with made-up moral high grounds? war, from any definition, means killing people.

Well, considering that Israel's past interventions in Lebanon have been little short of disastrous in terms of both achieving stated aims and in terms of how Israel is viewed throughout the world I think you will find him increasingly less likely to make such threats and increasingly less credible if he does.

i´d say that not limiting the wording to military intervention, but bomb dropping and stuff like that would make the willingness to execute threat more credible in the sense that it would be less costly to israel.

Prior to the 1982 invasion of Lebanon Isreal was seen as having a robust and fair military morality. The debacle in Lebanon saw an end to that and the beginnings of awareness in the West that perhaps the Arabs and Palestinians did have some valid rights and greivances.

i dont think you acquire rights out of sheer suffering, besides reparation (in the case you didnt started the mess).
you either have them, or not. and like i said before.. i dont think you can claim back rights, including but not limited to reparation, you voluntarily forfeited.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

What sshappy said.

honestly, cutting the PR, would it be any worse than what is already standard procedure?
i dont think its moral to send your own to die, when you have other means to achieve pretty much the same thing. i dont think its moral that "morality" should require you to do token sacrifices in the quest for morality itself.

I'll add this question. Is the life of an Israeli worth more than the life of a Palestinian?

at this point, it doesnt matter much if they get away. what it matters more in the long run is if they stop attacking. the chance that happens, even out of fear, would be without a doubt, an improvement.
plus from an utilitarian pov, making that "adjustment" on current morality.. would counter a lot of the incentives of using terror tactics in the first place, making it much less attractive, and likely much less used.

Ugh. Why can't you understand that unless you are willing to go ahead and actually commit genocide your bluff will be called and it will come to nothing? When the "bad" guys get away, they will not feel the sting of your threat, and therefore will not be afraid of it or cowed by it. But, if you don't evacuate, then you will have to mow down all the innocent civilians in your way. You can't win.

i dont agree on that. i dont think you are "bad" or "inmoral" for using "terror tactics" in response to "terror tactics", in the same way you arent "bad" or "inmoral" for killing somebody who is about to kill you.

That is a completely false analogy. Killing someone who is trying to kill you is self defense. Killing some family that has never done anything to you in retaliation for the acts of someone else (or as a pre-emptive measure) is straight up, unadulterated, cold-blooded murder.

i think the status of "bad" or "inmoral" should only be granted to the first one who introduces that tactic into the playing field.

So, if someone were to slap you, that would mean that you can do whatever you want to them for all of eternity so long as you think you are keeping that person from slapping you again?

if olmert today, thru a carefully worded statement, pretty much lays down that the past intervention (and worse) in lebanon will from now on standard operation anytime a rockets hits israel....
do you really think people will take it as nothing? or they will just laugh at the news?

What, because he hasn't already pissed off the Lebanese populace enough? They won't laugh at the news. They will be more convinced than ever that Israel is a rogue state that needs to be stopped or destroyed. Plus, if Olmert doesn't follow through the next time something happens, and there will be a next time, then his bluff is called and he is defeated. If he does follow through, then he isn't actually bluffing, is he?

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

What sshappy said.


I'll add this question. Is the life of an Israeli worth more than the life of a Palestinian?

is the opposite true?
now, from perspective, would you find it reasonably to ask an israeli to kill an israeli to save a palestinian? would it be reasonable to ask a palestinian to kill a palestinian to save an israeli??

Ugh. Why can't you understand that unless you are willing to go ahead and actually commit genocide your bluff will be called and it will come to nothing? When the "bad" guys get away, they will not feel the sting of your threat, and therefore will not be afraid of it or cowed by it. But, if you don't evacuate, then you will have to mow down all the innocent civilians in your way. You can't win.

that is assuming the bluff will be called.
for example, the bluff in the cold war was never called.

That is a completely false analogy. Killing someone who is trying to kill you is self defense. Killing some family that has never done anything to you in retaliation for the acts of someone else (or as a pre-emptive measure) is straight up, unadulterated, cold-blooded murder.

what if that in turns prevents your death??? if you point a gun at me and tell me "stab this person or i will kill you", be sure i´ll do it. for 2 reasons. first, it will give me a chance to survive. 2nd. at least one of us is already dead. if i dont stab you, the other guy will shoot me (for not stabbing you) and then will shoot the other guy (since its obvious he wants that guy dead).
it could actually minimize losses.

So, if someone were to slap you, that would mean that you can do whatever you want to them for all of eternity so long as you think you are keeping that person from slapping you again?

i´d slap them back once and tell them i´d slap them back again if they slap me again.

What, because he hasn't already pissed off the Lebanese populace enough? They won't laugh at the news. They will be more convinced than ever that Israel is a rogue state that needs to be stopped or destroyed. Plus, if Olmert doesn't follow through the next time something happens, and there will be a next time, then his bluff is called and he is defeated. If he does follow through, then he isn't actually bluffing, is he?

there might not be a next time if the threat is big enough, a la cold war.
or if there is a next time, going thru the usual actions sans PR could well satisfy the bluff. it would become a matter on how it was worded.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

is the opposite true?
now, from perspective, would you find it reasonably to ask an israeli to kill an israeli to save a palestinian? would it be reasonable to ask a palestinian to kill a palestinian to save an israeli??

Why is that a reasonable counter question?

What you are talking about is that instead of sending in one Israeli troop to be killed, you would rather kill a whole Palestinian family that has nothing to do with this, except that they were unlucky enough to be born Palestinian.

that is assuming the bluff will be called.
for example, the bluff in the cold war was never called.

And it will.

The difference with the cold war was that the arms were of equal scale and it was a mutual threat. You are talking about one-sided threats of completely unequal scale.

what if that in turns prevents your death???

How is the killing of some lowly peasant family going to prevent your death? C'mon.

i´d slap them back once and tell them i´d slap them back again if they slap me again.

Then you are not being consistent. If you were consistent, you would not only slap them back, but threaten to kill them and their family if they ever even look at you wrong.

there might not be a next time if the threat is big enough, a la cold war.
or if there is a next time, going thru the usual actions sans PR could well satisfy the bluff. it would become a matter on how it was worded.

Not if, but when.

 

[sshappy]

i´d rather see it as total numbers VS total numbers.
dead people is dead people.

Well you raised the question of morality. Are you now saying that you prefer the morality of minimizing total dead? In that case you really shouldn't be looking at an oppresive use of force as you will most certainly create more dead whilst you fail to end the conflict.

the peace thru fear of total anhilation?. the cold war, wwii.

There were many reasons that the cold war did not break out into a hot war in Europe but sadly elsewhere it did;
Korea, Vietnam, Angola, Afghanistan, Middle East.

Google how many wars occurred between 1945 and 1990, see if it's really any different since the end of the cold war.


As for WWII, you are clearly referring to the atomic bombs dropped on Japan, a nation already seeking terms for surrender. Using an example of a war that has raged for 6 years and is already over, all bar the shouting, proves nothing.

how far back? how about 1 iteration. scale relevant? i´d say yes.
how many times you can respond and keep a moral high ground? what the infatuation with made-up moral high grounds? war, from any definition, means killing people.

I mentioned morals because you did. You said "i think the status of "bad" or "inmoral" should only be granted to the first one who introduces that tactic into the playing field". So is moral once, or many times once it has been introduced? If North Korea detonate an atomic weapon in the US are they morally correct? Of course not, neither would Japan be if they did the same.

i´d say that not limiting the wording to military intervention, but bomb dropping and stuff like that would make the willingness to execute threat more credible in the sense that it would be less costly to israel.

But that is what they did recently and not for the first time. It didn't work then and it won't work next time. Much like 'Shock and Awe' hasn't cowed the Iraqi insurgency.

i dont think you acquire rights out of sheer suffering, besides reparation (in the case you didnt started the mess).
you either have them, or not. and like i said before.. i dont think you can claim back rights, including but not limited to reparation, you voluntarily forfeited.

Rights are surely inherent rather than acquired.

Reparations are morally repugnant when drawn from people other than those who actually committed the acts in question.