Bomb Makers have to eat too.

[GUNWOUNDS]

What IS can very well be what's WRONG. The nazis overthrew several political rivals to get to the fore of German politics (stronger lion killing the weaker), was that RIGHT, in your terms?

The stronger can dictate what IS, but that does not necessarily mean they are correct. And what's more, having what IS decided upon by negotiation would be infinately preferable to having it forced on a population by the strong.

(On a side note, don't call me out for using phrases like 'good' and 'right' here. I use them because they are convenient, because I am not arguing on my own terms, and because the synonyms are just annoying. Any phrases such as 'how can you prove this is wrong?' or 'what's so bad about that?' Will be ignored. This is not the place for them).

Completely Wrong on all points.

You see ...

[Dante]

You see ...  negotiation has all the bureaucratic  arterial clogging and "red tape" (which you admit to hating) which undermines any real progress being made....

Negotiation takes longer, but the results are better. Bureaucracy has its place, it has its uses.

Take Iraq.... they ignored Sanctions and negotiations for 10 years... but War toppled them in basically 1 year (actually weeks) .... Tenfold more progress.

You think so? So the thousands of deaths, the continuing resistance, the kidnappings and murders, they're all positive progress are they? These things which would never have happened if not for the war?

Look at Israel and Palestine.  A nice invasion by Israel would clear things up nicely... but instead they negotiate indefinately.

Not indefinately. Sooner or later, be it in seven years or seventy, a deal will be made.

Only one thing is more valuable than money... and that is TIME.  Negotiation wastes time and stifles progress.

It takes time, it doesn't waste it. And the progress is always slow, but the results will be better. Patience is a virtue.

[GUNWOUNDS]

You think so? So the thousands of deaths, the continuing resistance, the kidnappings and murders, they're all positive progress are they? These things which would never have happened if not for the war?

Its called collateral damage.... also you are thinking narrow-mindedly..... you must weigh ALL factors past present and future.

Put everything on the scale ... not just what you want.  Yes people died.. but they also died under Saddam.. we must weigh TOTAL benefit and TOTAL loss Today & Projected Future vs TOTAL benefit and TOTAL loss in the past.

Dont just pick out a few dead muslims here and there and shake their corpses around trying to evoke sympathy.... get out the big scales and weigh it all... then open your mouth.

[emprworm]

if it weren't for those wonderful bombmakers, most of the world would be under dictatorship.  Most definiately Europe and America would. 

Nuke-makers are even more wonderful.  Just having a nuke itself is what is known as "deterrence".  This is why having something like the death penalty is a good idea.  Knowing the punishment for something is a deterrent to doing it.  And no one has yet to comment on this:

technology like the CD-ROM, and Microwave oven are by-products of weapons research.

[Megashrap]

  And no one has yet to comment on this

technology like the CD-ROM, and Microwave oven are by-products of weapons research.

 

  Not to mention that the Internet itself was directly derived from weapons system research, "The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency".

[Anathema]

Bombs are needed..... needed for military operations overseas... and for training exercises.

[Dante]

Its called collateral damage.... also you are thinking narrow-mindedly..... you must weigh ALL factors past present and future.

Put everything on the scale ... not just what you want.  Yes people died.. but they also died under Saddam.. we must weigh TOTAL benefit and TOTAL loss Today & Projected Future vs TOTAL benefit and TOTAL loss in the past.

Dont just pick out a few dead muslims here and there and shake their corpses around trying to evoke sympathy.... get out the big scales and weigh it all... then open your mouth.

I'm typing. You know that, right? With the keyboard?

I do see the big picture. And I see conflict that could have been avoided. Sooner or later Saddam would have died, sooner or later his sons would die. Sooner or later, be it in a year or a hundred years, the regime would fall and Iraq would be peaceful. Without bloodshed. Without insurgency. Without kidnappings or beheadings. That is the big picture.

if it weren't for those wonderful bombmakers, most of the world would be under dictatorship. Most definiately Europe and America would.

Not necessarily. These bombs made to protect us, wheren't they similar to the bombs made to fight against us? So if we didn't have the bombs, the enemy wouldn't have had the bombs, and it would have worked out balanced anyway.

Nuke-makers are even more wonderful. Just having a nuke itself is what is known as "deterrence". This is why having something like the death penalty is a good idea. Knowing the punishment for something is a deterrent to doing it.

Uh huh. And that's why so many people are still executed, yeah? In case you don't remember, mutual destruction is what kept the cold war going.

And no one has yet to comment on this:

technology like the CD-ROM, and Microwave oven are by-products of weapons research

Are you saying that they would have been impossible to discover without researching weaponry? I don't think so...

Producing arms is only justifyable when they're absolutely necessary. That is, either to actively protect yourself or others, or to support a reasonably sized army just in case. Producing arms is therefore a necessary evil.

What I tried to say is that your argument that bombs should be produced because it creates jobs is absurd. That's what Hitler did, albeit on a larger scale.

He has a point.

[GUNWOUNDS]

I do see the big picture. And I see conflict that could have been avoided. Sooner or later Saddam would have died, sooner or later his sons would die. Sooner or later, be it in a year or a hundred years, the regime would fall and Iraq would be peaceful. Without bloodshed. Without insurgency. Without kidnappings or beheadings. That is the big picture.

Not necessarily. These bombs made to protect us, wheren't they similar to the bombs made to fight against us? So if we didn't have the bombs, the enemy wouldn't have had the bombs, and it would have worked out balanced anyway. He has a point.

You are not seeing the big picture..... imagine the beheadings and kidnappings and slaughter that would have went on for the rest of Saddam's life and his sons life and their sons lives..... a multi-century reign by the Saddam family would have produced more bloodshed than the tiny invasion we performed.

Wake up.

[Megashrap]

Producing arms is only justifyable when they're absolutely necessary. That is, either to actively protect yourself or others, or to support a reasonably sized army just in case. Producing arms is therefore a necessary evil.

  Producing arms is a necessity, period.  We do not produce arms the night before going to war either.  This idea that the worlds problems can be solved by sitting around a table bitching and moaning will NEVER be a solution to any issues reguarding terrorism, and many other issues for that matter. And should'nt. It really is just that simple.

  The logic of "lets give peace a chance" beleivers in solving problems such as terrorism (as good as may sound to some) will never be a valid option.  actions speak louder than words.  Necessary evil to produce weapons? To some maybe.  But again it is a necessity that far outweighs wondering if arms are just evil across the board.

[nemafakei]

Whereas killing is obviously the way to ensure peace.

I mean if we keep going for long enough, there'll be noone to fight.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Whereas killing is obviously the way to ensure peace.

I mean if we keep going for long enough, there'll be noone to fight.

Killing may not bring about peace instantly ... but it brings obedience... and that will suffice for now.  Obedience is the foundation upon which peace is built.

[nemafakei]

Obedience? That sounds like no more than coercion by fear of force. Also known as terrorism.

[Dude_Doc]

This idea that the worlds problems can be solved by sitting around a table bitching and moaning will NEVER be a solution to any issues reguarding terrorism, and many other issues for that matter.

Then how can we ever understand each other? The last thing I want to see is a world ruled by the US government, and you probably wouldn't want the Swedish government ruling over you, would you?

The logic of "lets give peace a chance" beleivers in solving problems such as terrorism (as good as may sound to some) will never be a valid option.

And you think the terrorists will just give up if you go hunting for them with a rifle? That will only create more terrorists, and inspire more acts of terror. 

Necessary evil to produce weapons? To some maybe.  But again it is a necessity that far outweighs wondering if arms are just evil across the board.

Until you yourself one day are shot by the weapons you so much love, or damaged by some kind of mind. It is easy for us, living as we do, to say such things. But once you're in the Middle East or in a guerrilla war in Africa it wouldn't be fun any longer.

Killing may not bring about peace instantly ... but it brings obedience... and that will suffice for now.  Obedience is the foundation upon which peace is built.

Yes - if the master commands peace. But what would happen if this master commanded war and suffering?

[GUNWOUNDS]

Obedience? That sounds like no more than coercion by fear of force. Also known as terrorism.

Faulty logic.

[nemafakei]

"Faulty logic"

Faulty terminology!

"by fear of force"

You've quoted then ignored this.

Police do not coerce by fear of violence, they wield the power of imprisonment. I do not know if your later descriprion is an official part of the American legal system, but over here, the police work as a restraint rather than a faction.

[GUNWOUNDS]

nema if i open fire on someone in the middle of the street in plain view of police officers.... they WILL gun me down.  Just ask the LAPD .. they have shot plenty of people.

But yes many times they will imprison you... but terrorists can also imprison you.

And in the united states we have the death penalty.... so our police force does have threat of deadly force  coercing their citizens to obey the law.

[Megashrap]

Then how can we ever understand each other? The last thing I want to see is a world ruled by the US government, and you probably wouldn't want the Swedish government ruling over you, would you?

Yes - if the master commands peace. But what would happen if this master commanded war and suffering?

I'm not saying cut off all communications with all other global nations and yank out the red phone in the oval office, im refering to terrorism for the most part.

A good example of this is the UN, when several countries for the most part stagnated any realistic progress from occuring.

Impossing sanctions clearly would've not accomplished anything. Are we forgeting that Iraq  was in possesion of a large percentage of the worlds oil?  Simply thinking Iraq would crumble and terrorism abolished

eventually from the other countries table scraps is very unrealistic.  And what happened through "talks"? exactly, bitching and moaning and not much more than that. and a few countries decided to keep sanctions impossed, Powell for the most part saying, "wake up world and get your thumbs out of your asses".

Personally, I do not want a 747 loaded with a dirty bomb jetting in from oblivion into my town,  And i'm sure you wouldn't want that either. And thats a good enough reason for me personally to disagree with "peace talks" on terrorism. And will I sleep well at night knowing that troops are killing off terrorist, Iraqi insurgents or whatever term you would like to call them?

Yes I will.

[nemafakei]

Terrorists are not exerting a method of restraint, they are kidnapping as a form of assault.

Police do not force people to obey them, they restrain people from using force on others.

In exceptional circumstances, yes the police will use lethal restraint. But it is not a threat of violence; arrest is still the preferred option, but if pursuing arrest over a faster form of restaint causes more killing than it would solve, then the more expedient option is followed.

Again, maybe it's different over there. If so, I don't like your police force.

[Megashrap]

Terrorists are not exerting a method of restraint, they are kidnapping as a form of assault.

Police do not force people to obey them, they restrain people from using force on others.

Again, maybe it's different over there. If so, I don't like your police force.

  Again I bring up the point from a similar post I made that terrorist are not your garden variety criminals in need of restraint.  If they are waiving a white clothe crawling out of a spider hole then i'm sure they will be  taken into custody, However, most do not choose this method. also,in times of war there tends to certainly be a dire need to obey.

[nemafakei]

Terrorists thrive in times of war. Military force does little to force the *terrorists* into obedience; it's rather difficult to kill terrorists with an army.

It's far more preferable to disarm terrorists by removing reasons to hate you. Try to stop people becoming disenchanted to the points of anger, and you stop support for terrorists. Display your military might, threaten, coerce, and you encourage terrorism.

[Megashrap]

It's far more preferable to disarm terrorists by removing reasons to hate you. Try to stop people becoming disenchanted to the points of anger, and you stop support for terrorists. Display your military might, threaten, coerce, and you encourage terrorism.

Well in a perfect world maybe reasoning might work, if this proved to be a worthy alternative we would no doubt be doing it rather than sacrificing service men and women.

You have to remember that this type of terrorist is driven by religous and radical beliefs.  Genocide of entire nations and trying to carry this out simply because of hate, and to carry this out by any means necessary reguardless of their own life (which has already been proven)  rather strikes me as unreasonable and unreachable by any attempts.

Terrorists thrive in times of war.

  I wouldn't say they are thriving or spawning in great numbers as much as they are resorting to feeble and yes sometimes deadly last ditch efforts when rooted out or stumbled upon.  And how could any Iraqi be so disenchanted by having democracy vs.living under the rule of a ruthless dictator whos ideal  beliefs most likely goes against any religon and probably any god that I have ever learned or heard of?  I mean fear of actually worrying if one could be killed at any givin time on a day to day basis vs. not having to worry about that alone is enough to justify intervention is it not?

  Really, how could even the most diehard thinking liberal not see just that one fact alone, that just by removing Sadam that we have saved countless lives?  Is saving lives not an agreeable goal in itself?

[nemafakei]

"Really, how could even the most radically thinking liberal not see just that one fact alone, that by just by removing Sadam that we have saved countless lives?"

Radical liberals? Where are you talking about (and what relevance does liberalism on the point you're making here)?

Firstly, be careful of assuming your mindset is that of the Iraqis; for many the question may not be the eventual result, but the immediate effect of the invasion and disposition of the invaders. Secondly, Iraq is not the only place in which terrorism can spawn.

[Megashrap]

Yes I just saw and edited the radical part, but I think you know what i'm getting at.

[Megashrap]

be careful of assuming your mindset is that of the Iraqis; for many the question may not be the eventual result, but the immediate effect of the invasion and disposition of the invaders. Secondly, Iraq is not the only place in which terrorism can spawn.

I'm not trying to assume the Iraqis mindset, but simply offering and putting forth a reasonable question.

[nemafakei]

Well, the question itself doesn't really affect the central issue (and I don't want to go off on a tangent).