Why you should vote for Bush...

[Anderton Prime]

Give a single example of anything besides war ending war.

Give a single example of passivity overcoming violence.

This either doesn't make much sense or isn't fair at all. Once you're in a war, you're in a war. If you meant to say name one time that something other than war ended a disagreement or a conflict, then jpmontoya gave some excellent examples.

When the U.S. backed out of Viet Nam, did not that end a war? War does not end a war, it makes no sense. Surrender and negotiation ends war. War ends nothing.

 

[milefile]

Of all the posts I've read here, I don't recall one that advocates passivity.

But, if you want an example of something else than war ending a conflict, the Cuban missile crisis is a good one.

Nice try. Big nuclear bombs and what they do averted war in that instance. And it wouldn't have been just any war. It would've been the end of most of the world. Both sides knew niether could win. This is far from the situation now.

Or the cold war as a whole. (a direct)War could have solved it rather quickly.

And would've destroyed civilization. You see, there's this little thing calle nuclear holocaust. It was averted through a state of affairs refered to as mutually assured destruction. The world has lived through this once before. America's preemptive strategy aims precisely at avoiding this situation again. It is working. And it would've worked in 1917 if America had known what it knows now.

 

[Arwin]

Arwin isreal is a country. its recognized by the UN and almost all the countrys on EARTH. What do propose, that they just pack up and move ? And I guess the US should give back the country to the Indians and the People of Europe should all go back to where ever they origionaly came from. the jews have a claim to the land they occupy so do the Palestinians. unfortunately they also seem to be unable to live together and are unwilling to sit and negotiate a solution.

I suggest Israel:
- gives a decent part of Palestine to the Palestines and allow them to become autonomous. How about simply following the agreed peace plans and UN resolutions? (since you brought the UN in)

Again arwin I ask you, how do you respond to being attacked?

Give me a situation and I'll answer. To give a rough indication though, if you mean personally, I'll let you know beforehand that I have had kung fu training in which the first 8 steps (out of 10) were ways to avoid a fight. You see, even in 1-1 situations, the perception of who started the fight is important. To avoid getting booked for starting a fight, you better not get into a situation where you punched someone first because he might have punched you otherwise.

If you refer to the attack on the US, then I would say that Afghanistan was an understandable response, Iraq was a bad call.

I don't generally get into fights. That is because if you let a cancer fester to much, it will seed. I like to diagnose often and treat early. This I would like to apply on an international schale too, if I had the chance, as it would be the best way to guarantee my safety and that of my fellow human beings.

(No, that doesn't mean I think violence is never the answer, like some people do.)

 

[milefile]

This either doesn't make much sense or isn't fair at all. Once you're in a war, you're in a war. If you meant to say name one time that something other than war ended a disagreement or a conflict, then jpmontoya gave some excellent examples.

When the U.S. backed out of Viet Nam, did not that end a war? War does not end a war, it makes no sense. Surrender and negotiation ends war. War ends nothing.

No. It makes exquisite, perfect sense. It is so simple and fundementally true that you can't comprehend it, apparently.

 

[Arwin]

Fear, greed and megalomania start wars, common sense ends it. War fundamentally never ends war - that makes as much sense as water drying water. War has never ended war, except in the few rare occasions where there was noone left alive on one side.

 

[milefile]

I suggest Israel:
- gives a decent part of Palestine to the Palestines and allow them to become autonomous. How about simply following the agreed peace plans and UN resolutions? (since you brought the UN in)

You mean like reverting back to the boundaries of 1967? The ones that weren't good enough except as a reason for the entire region to attack Israel from all sides?

 

[milefile]

Fear, greed and megalomania start wars, common sense ends it. War fundamentally never ends war. War has never ended war, except in the few rare occasions where there was noone left alive on one side.

Lots of things start war. Common sense wins war. So in a way, you're right.

 

[Arwin]

You mean like reverting back to the boundaries of 1967? The ones that weren't good enough except as a reason for the entire region to attack Israel from all sides?

That was 37 years ago?

 

[Danoff]

If the Middle East would suddenly stop supplying the US with Oil, I suspect even now they'd invade within a month.

This is a terrible accusation - totally unwarrented and paints the US as brutal murderers.

My point was that if Japan had been accepted into the world community after WWI and if peace, freedom and equality had been on the agenda properly...

Your point was that Japan was justified in attacking the US because they didn't get their way after a failed attempt at diplomacy.

One of the ways that the US had been 'negotiating' with Japan previously was by simply attacking here and there on a small scale, showing who's boss

It's really our fault afterall.

Cause and effect are complex and go a long way.

It's funny how cause and effect always come back to the US being the cause of every negative effect and everyone else being the cause of every positive effect.

 

[Carl.]

...and again, that wasn't really a war but the avoidance of one.

That was actually my point. In the Cuban missile crisis, diplomacy (or avoidance of war) in response of hostile acts kept us from living through the nuclear holocaust Milefile described.

So, if I understood how things works out, a nuclear weapon is a very efficient negotiation insurance in case of an international conflict, an insurance that your voice will be heard.

Just thinking, what could actually be worse than dealing with a nuclear attack? Perhaps one that you don't even have a clue of where to retaliate.

 

[Danoff]

Just thinking, what could actually be worse than dealing with a nuclear attack? Perhaps one that you don't even have a clue of where to retaliate.

Exactly why we need to focus on stamping out terrorism.

That was actually my point. In the Cuban missile crisis, diplomacy (or avoidance of war) in response of hostile acts kept us from living through the nuclear holocaust Milefile described.

Diplomacy is good. But diplomcy doesn't deal with every issue.

 

[ledhed]

War ended the third Riech and Japan and italy's attempt at world domination. nothing short of war or the defeat of the allies would have ended it. a better example of worthless negotiations could not be made than with chamberlin and Hitler. negotiation and diplomacy mean NOTHING without force and the willingness to use it when WORDS fail.

 

[milefile]

negotiation and diplomacy mean NOTHING without force and the willingness to use it when WORDS fail.

Bears repeating...

 

[Arwin]

This is a terrible accusation - totally unwarrented and paints the US as brutal murderers.

Now hang on, you make that a terrible accusation, I didn't. I think that would be a lot more serious attack on the US than Iraq has been in the last few years. Although I know that the US keeps a decent stock, a threat of a fuel crisis under the current circumstances is going to wreck the US economy fast.

Your point was that Japan was justified in attacking the US because they didn't get their way after a failed attempt at diplomacy.

My point was that Japan grew up in a world where force was demonstrated to be a legitimate means of getting your way by the US (and many others).

It's really our fault afterall.

Certainly not much less than it was Japan's fault. People everywhere are the same and do things for the same reasons. Only cultural development doesn't always keep up between cultures. Things that were acceptable to us 30-40 years ago aren't now, and some countries at some point in history have (at least) a 30-40 year worth of catching up to do.

It's funny how cause and effect always come back to the US being the cause of every negative effect and everyone else being the cause of every positive effect.

That's what you make of it. We happen to be discussing Bush and his policies, and paralels are drawn with historical occurences. Then I build on that. If you feel better if I quote from the rich history of the Netherlands to support my arguments, I can do that too. You'd be amazed how rich that history is in terms of mistakes, abuse of power, wars, and so on.

My sole and humble goal in these discussions is to contribute to learning from our mistakes, all our mistakes made by all of us, not just the US stuff, in order to make the world a slightly better place and at the very least keep it from getting worse. I hope you understand that - I have no interest in personal gain, winning discussions for the sake of the discussion, or any of that. I have no interest in turning the US into a global black sheep. And in terms of politics, I'm certain there are enough Republicans I could vote for who share at least some of my views on international politics.

 

[Arwin]

ledhed: negotiation and diplomacy mean NOTHING without force and the willingness to use it when WORDS fail.

milefile: Bears repeating...

danoff: Your point was that Japan was justified in attacking the US because they didn't get their way after a failed attempt at diplomacy.

Arwin: My point was that Japan grew up in a world where force was demonstrated to be a legitimate means of getting your way by the US (and many others).

(couldn't resist putting these together)

 

[Danoff]

Now hang on, you make that a terrible accusation, I didn't.

No I didn't. You claimed that the US would kill people to get oil. I think that's a terrible accusation.

think that would be a lot more serious attack on the US than Iraq has been in the last few years.

Doesn't mean we're justified in attacking other countries to take their natural resources. You're accusing us of having no morals.

My point was that Japan grew up in a world where force was demonstrated to be a legitimate means of getting your way by the US (and many others).

Exactly what demonstrations are you referring to? And why is it not Japan's fault if they follow a bad example?

Certainly not much less than it was Japan's fault.

We are as much to blame for perl harbor as they are? I'm losing sight of your connection to the real world.

ledhed: negotiation and diplomacy mean NOTHING without force and the willingness to use it when WORDS fail.

milefile: Bears repeating...

danoff: Your point was that Japan was justified in attacking the US because they didn't get their way after a failed attempt at diplomacy.

Arwin: My point was that Japan grew up in a world where force was demonstrated to be a legitimate means of getting your way by the US (and many others).

Just because force exists and the willingness to use it exists doesn't mean that it is justified in all contexts and that diplomacy will fail. Diplomacy, in fact, can be helped substantially by the willingness to use force. America should be willing to use force where it is necessary to defend herself against hostile enemies. I don't see what is wrong with being willing to defend yourself.

 

[Arwin]

No I didn't. You claimed that the US would kill people to get oil. I think that's a terrible accusation.

I still think you don't really understand the implications.

Doesn't mean we're justified in attacking other countries to take their natural resources. You're accusing us of having no morals.

No to take them, but to be allowed to purchase them. Hear yourself talk now, but I'd like to see how soon you'd change your mind if the U.S. ever went there. Fuel prices at 80 dollar would still cause a recession all by themselves. Not getting any fuel at all for a longer period will do a lot worse. Ok, so the U.S. has a reserve for about a year I think, so a month might be an exaggeration, but you can't wait to long or you'll only have a few nuclear subs left to defend yourself with due to lack of oil and whole of society will have come to a standstill. Except maybe California, thanks to their ambitious nitrogen project. 👍

Exactly what demonstrations are you referring to? And why is it not Japan's fault if they follow a bad example?

Under those circumstances, my point was that they were only as bad as the people who set the example. Not that they weren't bad. Just not worse.

We are as much to blame for perl harbor as they are? I'm losing sight of your connection to the real world.

I'm trying to reconnect you to the world, particularly to the part where the real world has a history.

Just because force exists and the willingness to use it exists doesn't mean that it is justified in all contexts and that diplomacy will fail. Diplomacy, in fact, can be helped substantially by the willingness to use force. America should be willing to use force where it is necessary to defend herself against hostile enemies. I don't see what is wrong with being willing to defend yourself.

Me neither. I never said there is anything wrong with being willing to defend yourself. The discussion here was if the 'defense' was justified in Iraq. The discussion is when you reach that phase of 'last resort' and how you can prevent getting there. The discussion is how to keep in people minds that even if it can sometimes be a necessary evil, it's still an evil.

 

[Danoff]

The discussion here was if the 'defense' was justified in Iraq.

Actually you shifted the discussion to be about whether that 'defense' was justified in Japan. You didn't answer my question:

Exactly what demonstrations are you referring to? And why is it not Japan's fault if they follow a bad example?

Notice the word fault. And especially please answer the first part.

Fuel prices at 80 dollar would still cause a recession all by themselves

That doesn't mean we're justified in going to war. It means we're justfied in purchasing the already existing transportation alternatives.

I still think you don't really understand the implications.

I was thinking the same thing about you.

No to take them, but to be allowed to purchase them. Hear yourself talk now, but I'd like to see how soon you'd change your mind if the U.S. ever went there.

How well do you know me? Do you know me well enough to claim that I would justify an attack on a country for the purpose of seizing natural resources? Do you know me well enough to know whether I would kill for money? Your statement above proves that you don't.

I'm going to say this one more time.

Do not accuse me of being willing to kill for money or resources.

 

[Arwin]

Actually you shifted the discussion to be about whether that 'defense' was justified in Japan. You didn't answer my question

I wrote more than enough about the demonstrations and I don't need to repeat myself, just go back to the stuff I wrote on Japanese history and look again at the bits I put in bold. I then restated them again in a post afterwards. Please be kind enough to actually read that, as I've read everything you wrote too .

That doesn't mean we're justified in going to war. It means we're justfied in purchasing the already existing transportation alternatives.

At this point there is no fallback and it is doubtful one could be set up sufficiently in one or two years, which would still not do enormous damages to the US economy.

I was thinking the same thing about you.

How well do you know me? Do you know me well enough to claim that I would justify an attack on a country for the purpose of seizing natural resources? Do you know me well enough to know whether I would kill for money? Your statement above proves that you don't.

I'm going to say this one more time.

Do not accuse me of being willing to kill for money or resources.

Lets get a few scenarios out over which we could or not could start a war.

- a country attacks you directly with its own army
- a country that isn't able or willing to arrest and hand over some of its residents that attacked you
- a country has an unproven intention of developing a weapon that might just be used to attack you directly
- a country is going to prevent you from getting fuel that you need to run your country, hospitals, ambulances and god knows what else, that may force you to quickly resort to other means with hi-risks of accidents, that may double poverty rates in a short time that will kill more people over a year than the WTC attack
- a country that has a different government type than you
- a country that doesn't respect human rights
- a country that has the death penalty

You haven't given me much reason to believe yet that you understand the possible implications of a long term fuel cut. I'm not so sure I fully understand them, but well enough to know they are huge.

 

[Danoff]

I wrote more than enough about the demonstrations and I don't need to repeat myself, just go back to the stuff I wrote on Japanese history and look again at the bits I put in bold. I then restated them again in a post afterwards. Please be kind enough to actually read that, as I've read everything you wrote too.

I read your posts the first time. You don’t have to answer if you don’t want to.

At this point there is no fallback and it is doubtful one could be set up sufficiently in one or two years, which would still not do enormous damages to the US economy.

At this point there is a fallback, but it would still do enormous damage to the economy.

Lets get a few scenarios out over which we could or not could start a war.

- a country attacks you directly with its own army

Ok.

- a country that isn't able or willing to arrest and hand over some of its residents that attacked you

Wrong already. "Able" is not appropriate.

- a country has an unproven intention of developing a weapon that might just be used to attack you directly

I do not consider this to be a valid reason for going to war. Luckily America hasn’t ever gone to war for that reason.

- a country is going to prevent you from getting fuel that you need to run your country, hospitals, ambulances and god knows what else, that may force you to quickly resort to other means with hi-risks of accidents, that may double poverty rates in a short time that will kill more people over a year than the WTC attack

Here is where you claim (again) that America has not a shred of moral fiber.

- a country that has a different government type than you

No.

- a country that doesn't respect human rights

Not sufficient by itself.

- a country that has the death penalty

Certainly not. We’d have to attack Texas.

 

[Arwin]

Here is where you claim (again) that America has not a shred of moral fiber.

I'm just saying there is more than one ways to attack, and more than one reason to retaliate. I'm glad you're so certain that you or the US would never attack in this particular situation, because I am not so sure I would do the same in that instance. This puts me in the interesting position where I might attack under those circumstances, but you are absolutely certain that you or America would never.

 

[Anderton Prime]

Around and around and around she goes.
Where will she stop? Nobody knows...

 

[Danoff]

I'm just saying there is more than one ways to attack, and more than one reason to retaliate. I'm glad you're so certain that you or the US would never attack in this particular situation, because I am not so sure I would do the same in that instance. This puts me in the interesting position where I might attack under those circumstances, but you are absolutely certain that you or America would never.

I'm not so certain that America would never, but I would never find it justified. Were America to do that I'd be pretty pissed off at this country.

I'm surprised to hear you say that you'd be willing to attack another country for natural resources. It's quite good of you to be that objective about yourself.

Let's make it a smaller example

Say you live in country X. Country Y has tons of water, but your country does not. Your country imports most of its water from country Y because you've been lazy and haven't set up your infrastructure to account for the amount of water you need.

Country Y decides to stop selling you water. That means that some of your citizens will die if you don't get more water than you can give them soon. Does that justify attacking country Y? Does that justify claiming that country Y is killing your citizens? No. It means you didn't prepare well enough and now your country is paying the price... Personal responsibility.

Let's take another example.

You buy a gun from a gun dealer (you have no past history of crime). You go kill someone with that gun. Does that mean the gun is at fault? The dealer? No the fault is yours... Personal responsibility.

One more.

You're starving. You have no job because you didn't try to get one / try to get the skills necessary to get one. You have no money and no food. Some other dude who planned ahead and has a job has plenty of money and food. Does this justify you attacking him to take his food and money? No.... Personal responsibility.


That last one is socialism in a nutshell. You are a socialist. That is why you think it would be ok for you to steal oil from another country if you really really needed it. Socialism is based on need, your way of thinking is based on need. Whoever needs money/food/oil/healthcare should get it. That's at the very core of the socialist concept.

That's the very core of why socialism is wrong. Not only does it ignore basic human nature, it just plain isn't fair or justified.

So you see, when you get down to ideology mine prevents me from attacking other country to get oil and yours tells you you should. Pretty ironic I would say.

 

[Arwin]

You remember I praised California's nitrogen station project?

If country x has water and country y doesn't, and country x has a surplus and country y has a shortage, and a decent number of people in country y risks dying of thirst, then we're looking at a pretty explosive situation. Say I got elected, and the presidency before me screwed it up, what would I do? In case country y won't sell us the water even they can spare it and we are willing to pay a good price, just because they don't like us, then it's going to take very little to make that get out of hand. There are only a few leaders that can say 'this is our fault, we have to deal with it, and that they won't help us is heartless, but their good right' and get away with it. I remember a certain Israeli president almost getting away with it, until he got shot by one of his own countrymen.

This water scenario btw is something we can look forward to becoming reality soon in the Middle East. While rich Israelis happily (and irresponsibly) water their rose gardens, the poor Israelis and Palistinians are facing an increasing shortage that threatens to become a bigger danger to peace in the region than the current land and government disputes.

Also the world becomes a smaller and smaller place. What if the greenhouse effect is 99% proven to be caused by man's industry, or a hole in the ozon layer starts to surface over the western hemisphere, and say Russia or China refuses to care one bit and increases industry, resulting in draughts, floodings, and walking in the sun becoming a serious health hazard. Interesting scenarios ...

In the end I think we agree on more points than onlookers would suspect.

 

[Arwin]

Just thought it was interesting to mention that big Dutch companies (you'd be surprised how many there are and what businesses they have in the US) have donated $10.000.000 to Bush, against $3.000.000 to Kerry.

 

[Arwin]

On a lighter note ...

http://www.boomchicago.nl/Section/Videos/BoomChicagoVotingMachine

 

[Tedehur]

On a lighter note ...

http://www.boomchicago.nl/Section/Videos/BoomChicagoVotingMachine

Links to an unreachable page right now.
BTW, I feel much more concerned by the elections in Afghanistan and by what those who will be elected can achieve there than by the us people having to choose between Dumb and Dumber.

 

[Arwin]

Yep, seems like the link is down. Guess if you google for 'boom chicago voting machine' or votingmachine.wmv you'll find it soon enough.

I thought this article was very interesting btw. Danoff should find some good stuff in there to hammer me further in the Counterpoint topic ...

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Report10_21_04.pdf

 

[Solid Fro]

Hmmm, ok, I got it now.

Dumb
(Bush)

Dumber
(Kerry)

Dumbest
(Chirac)


👍

 

[Tedehur]

That's a question of point of view. I wouldn't decide between Chirac and Kerry, but I would say :
Dumbest
(Bush)

Seeing you avatar and sig, I won't try to convince you, however. Democracy is mainly the right to be wrong.