"War on Terror" Numbers

[KeatonKitsune]

You've yet to really refute anything information I've posted, aside from saying "don't believe everything you hear", and while that's a good notion, it doesn't mean "don't believe anything at all".

Yeah, it’s hard to believe the media lately with all the crap they feed us. I mean, look at the issue at hand. At first, the media was with Bush with Iraq, then they came out with “oh there was false information” and all the crap that followed. Now all of a sudden there was no false information?

Sorry, but the credibility of the American media has been dissolved in its own acidic lies.

I think we need to raise our eyebrows.

Now, I don’t disagree with this. I think we should be concerned, and look into the issue. But you should be sure, if this is a legitimate issue, it WILL be asked to the president in some press conference. I’d like to see this be addressed by more than one guy.

And by the way, here's the logical failure of your entire analogy:

Assuming you live in a social anarchism (again, to be fair), then yes. I do.

Laws are different all over the world, and when two nations collide we have to look global laws.  There's a body called the United Nations which is supposed to be representative of this, that "higher power" you spoke of earlier, it does exist

Oh, the failure of my entire analogy, huh? Great, ‘cause I think I can work with this one.

If you will recall, I said “greater authority willing to look at the issue”. And just like the UN who was unwilling to do anything about it, so is the case in my analogy.

Keaton, you need to stop making so many straw men, it's embarrassing.  I merely said you underestimate the power of the executive branch of this nation.

Jordan, you need to stop making so many straw men, it's embarrassing.  I merely said you overestimate the power of the executive branch of this nation.

THOUGH

The President of the United States is typically considered the nation's leader and leader of the free world. 

Wait, so he’s the leader of the free world? So this would arguably include Iraq, no? Iraq being non-communist...

First off, this scenario is silly because if your room mate has a gun, then you don't have to intrude to find out, because you also would be living in that room.  Because you'd be room mates.  But for the sake of ignoring trivial details, I'll assume by "room mate" you actually mean "neighbor."

I am thinking of a room mate in the since that they share a house. Is “house mate” a better term? I’ve never heard that term before.

Second off, your scenario and the Iraq War differ in respect to the potential consequences of your actions.  In the roomie scenario, intruding will strain relations between you, maybe even one of you will end up getting shot, but only the two people will be affected.  In the case of Iraq, invasion, whether justified or nor, will results in tens of thousands of deaths, largely from innocent civilians.  I think that's an important distinction that warrants slightly heavier consideration of one's actions.

I see your point, but realize, if this guy has an assault rifle, he’s probably planning on using it on other people.

But this is easily solved. Let’s add that he is a very unstable individual, and you know that he may kill others if provoked. But then also we must add that it’s known that he has already killed others before; he’s a known murderer, and shows no signs of quitting.

Thirdly, I disagree that the person in your analogy is justified anyways, as breaking and entering of your own accord, even if you suspect illegal activity, is illegal.  A responsible citizen would alert the police, and defer to their authority.

Remember as stated, person A and B live in a social anarchy. There are no such laws governing them, much as there are no international laws governing the invasion of a country.

The way I'm interpreting this, person B arming themselves and barricading the door would be analogous to Saddam showing off his WMDs and threatening to blow up anyone who sets foot in Iraq.  And that never happened.

No, think of person B (or Iraq) arming themselves with weapons other than the assault rifle / WMDs... just like in real life.

See, the point is to mimic the Iraq situation, so we should try to make this analogy match the situation there. You’re right, Saddam did not arm himself with the WMDs, thusly, so should person B not be armed with the questioned weapon.

You don't actually mean this, do you?  Please tell me you don't actually mean this one.

What, you mean Saddam supporting terrorism? Um, yeah I mean it!

I'm just trying to say the the US should've waited for UN support before charging into Iraq.

And I might have agreed with you if a) it seemed like the UN was EVER going to agree, and b) waiting for the UN would not have cost even more innocent Iraqi lives.

Though I do need to ask... why is it important that they wait for the UN? Would this have changed things in a significant way? If the answer is ‘yes’, then that’s cool, but I really just want to know.

[The Tao Of Bill]

We definitely should not have gone into Iraq without UN support. Especially because the reason that was given to us was that Iraq violated UN resolutions by having WMDs. Why should we be the only people fighting to enforce UN resolutions?

WMD or no WMD Iraq was no threat to us. They were a threat to Europe and Asia and the Middle East but not to us. Reason? We're separated by thousands of miles of Ocean. Iraq would have to get a naval fleet within range of our nation to fire a missile at it. And I can guarantee that we would have detected any Iraqi fleet heading out way hundreds of miles before they got within range. We would have easily blasted their fleet out of the water before they could even get close to us.

Iraq was a threat to our allies. Not to us. And since our allies were unwilling to help protect their own countries then it simply was not our problem.  We should have finished the job in Afghanistan and Pakistan and forgotten about Iraq.

[Adam]

I am thinking of a room mate in the since that they share a house. Is “house mate” a better term? I’ve never heard that term before.

Eh, I'm a college kid, so "room mate" to me is the dude that shares your dorm room.  "House mate" works just fine, though.

I see your point, but realize, if this guy has an assault rifle, he’s probably planning on using it on other people.

Except that no small nation really builds nukes with the intention of using them, as that's basically asking to get yourself wiped off the map. 

But this is easily solved. Let’s add that he is a very unstable individual, and you know that he may kill others if provoked. But then also we must add that it’s known that he has already killed others before; he’s a known murderer, and shows no signs of quitting.

But here's where the analogy gets confusing, because you have to differentiate between killing people with an assault rifle, which is analogous to using WMDs, and killing people via less sophisticated means, which would be analogous to just regular killing people. 

No, think of person B (or Iraq) arming themselves with weapons other than the assault rifle / WMDs... just like in real life.

See, the point is to mimic the Iraq situation, so we should try to make this analogy match the situation there. You’re right, Saddam did not arm himself with the WMDs, thusly, so should person B not be armed with the questioned weapon.

So to clarify this, I'ma propose that Saddam is arming himself with a combat knife.  I think that differentiates nicely against an assault rifle in the same way that nukes differentiate nicely between actual firearms. 

So persons A and B are house mates.  Person A has plenty of knives and assault rifles.  He thinks that person B has an assault rifle or two laying around, and B refuses to let A in to check it out, and gets some knives of his own to defend himself.  Person B is also a known stabber.

This still the analogy we're discussing?

Remember as stated, person A and B live in a social anarchy. There are no such laws governing them, much as there are no international laws governing the invasion of a country.

I would disagree with you referring to the global community as a social anarchy.  It ain't no dainty lawful society, but I'd say it's sure a step above social anarchy.  The UN is evidence of this.

What, you mean Saddam supporting terrorism? Um, yeah I mean it!

More specifically, you were suggesting that Saddam had connections with Bin Laden.  Care to elaborate?

And I might have agreed with you if a) it seemed like the UN was EVER going to agree, and b) waiting for the UN would not have cost even more innocent Iraqi lives.

I'd like to consider the possibility that maybe if the rest of the world didn't think that Saddam's defiance of UN resolutions didn't warrant military action, maybe the US was mistaken in thinking otherwise.  As Rawr said, Iraq was a threat to the Middle East and Europe much more than us, so maybe if none of those actually threatened felt it was a serious enough situation to intervene, it's possible that we shouldn't be all that concerned either.

Also, I'm not gonna deny that stopping innocent from being tortured has been a nice benefit from the invasion, but I'm not gonna buy it as any sort of overly pressing justification for invading Iraq.  If it were, there are a number of places I can think of that would warrant a much more urgent invasion than Iraq.

Though I do need to ask... why is it important that they wait for the UN? Would this have changed things in a significant way? If the answer is ‘yes’, then that’s cool, but I really just want to know.

For starters, waiting for the UN means that the US isn't basically flipping off the majority of the world, so that eases a lot of international tensions, and we get to keep some respect among the international community.  Woo.

Also, I'm just going into speculation here, 'cause that's really all you can do with these sorts of what-ifs, but UN support = more troops for the invasion, which certainly could've changed the outcome of things.  Also, a more international coalition could mean different leadership, so maybe things could've been handled slightly more competently than in our current situation.

[KeatonKitsune]

Except that no small nation really builds nukes with the intention of using them, as that's basically asking to get yourself wiped off the map. 

Well that’s like saying no one man would ever wield an assault rifle against the rest of the population... yes, it may be likely the worst decision ever made by that individual, but it does happen.

But here's where the analogy gets confusing, because you have to differentiate between killing people with an assault rifle, which is analogous to using WMDs, and killing people via less sophisticated means, which would be analogous to just regular killing people. 

Okay, but both could have been done by Iraq. I think either way it still should work...

So to clarify this, I'ma propose that Saddam is arming himself with a combat knife.  I think that differentiates nicely against an assault rifle in the same way that nukes differentiate nicely between actual firearms.

No, the Iraqi militia. And with regular warfare weapons. Are you trying to make this hard, or something?

Look, if you have an issue with a situation in Iraq, then add a like situation in Person B. It’s that simple. There’s no reason to get overly complicated...

This still the analogy we're discussing?

Pretty close.

I would disagree with you referring to the global community as a social anarchy.  It ain't no dainty lawful society, but I'd say it's sure a step above social anarchy.  The UN is evidence of this.

The UN is a half-decent attempt at world-wide law... but it is in no means the accepted establishment world-round. Therefore, I call the world community an anarchy, as there is no single governing entity.

The point for the analogy was to show that there is no greater authority which would be obligated to handle situations like the police do.

More specifically, you were suggesting that Saddam had connections with Bin Laden.  Care to elaborate?

No, I don’t think I was. Not at all.

I'd like to consider the possibility that maybe if the rest of the world didn't think that Saddam's defiance of UN resolutions didn't warrant military action, maybe the US was mistaken in thinking otherwise.

That’s definitely one valid opinion.

We’ve

Also, I'm not gonna deny that stopping innocent from being tortured has been a nice benefit from the invasion, but I'm not gonna buy it as any sort of overly pressing justification for invading Iraq.  If it were, there are a number of places I can think of that would warrant a much more urgent invasion than Iraq.

See, I think the benefit is enough to justify going in. But again, that’s just me.

As to the last statement, that also may be true, but I don’t think that should mean that we can’t justify this. It may mean there could have been better places to go, but we had other reasons for going here.

For starters, waiting for the UN means that the US isn't basically flipping off the majority of the world, so that eases a lot of international tensions, and we get to keep some respect among the international community.  Woo.

Also, I'm just going into speculation here, 'cause that's really all you can do with these sorts of what-ifs, but UN support = more troops for the invasion, which certainly could've changed the outcome of things.  Also, a more international coalition could mean different leadership, so maybe things could've been handled slightly more competently than in our current situation.

Okay, good points.

I just don’t think it’s really all that big of a deal like so many people are making it out to be. The Iraqi insurgents would still have a huge advantage, being able to shield themselves amongst the Iraqi people, having home team advantage, etc.

But as always, that's just me.

[Adam]

Well that’s like saying no one man would ever wield an assault rifle against the rest of the population... yes, it may be likely the worst decision ever made by that individual, but it does happen.

And yet, no nation has ever gone on a mutually destructive rampage with nukes.  My personal belief here, although it's not really much more than speculation, is that the types of people who go on suicidal shooting rampages are not the same sort of people as those in charge of nukes.  Just by the nature of what it takes to become a nation leader/dictator, and the people who strive for such things, anyone with that sort of power is either going to not be willing to cause the deaths of millions of people, or not be willing to lose the power they've worked to obtain just out of spite.

No, the Iraqi militia. And with regular warfare weapons. Are you trying to make this hard, or something?

Look, if you have an issue with a situation in Iraq, then add a like situation in Person B. It’s that simple. There’s no reason to get overly complicated...

I...don't understand what you're getting at.  I'm proposing that if an assault rifle is analogous to WMDs, then knives would be analogous to your usual sort of warfare methods/technology.

No, I don’t think I was. Not at all.

So I take it you didn't really mean it when you said: "Person B also is known to hang out with friends who hate person A, and who have recently shot person A in the face with a big gun"?

The UN is a half-decent attempt at world-wide law... but it is in no means the accepted establishment world-round. Therefore, I call the world community an anarchy, as there is no single governing entity.

The point for the analogy was to show that there is no greater authority which would be obligated to handle situations like the police do.

I'd agree with you that the UN is not a police-type authority, but I would still say it's the highest authority available.  So rather than calling the UN analogous to police, I'd like to redraw the analogy a bit.  Instead of persons A and B being just dudes living in the same house, let's say they live in an apartment complex.  Rather than calling the apathetic police, person A consults with a number of other people in the apartment complex, and none of them support any sort of action against person B.

That’s definitely one valid opinion.

We’ve

I'm going to assume that something was left out here?

[Twilight Wolf]

See, I think the benefit is enough to justify going in. But again, that’s just me.

Now we're bringing in something totally different.  What's the analogous situation in your analogy?  Person A finds a locked up Ethiopian boy locked up and starved in the basement of Person B?

Your original question was whether or not his suspicions were enough to justify his going in, or in the case of the US, their suspicions enough to justify going into Iraq. 

The UN is a half-decent attempt at world-wide law... but it is in no means the accepted establishment world-round.

Say that to the 195 member nation states...

Rather than calling the apathetic police, person A consults with a number of other people in the apartment complex, and none of them support any sort of action against person B.

Well, to be fair, Person C (Britain) would support the barging into B's apartment to look.  Also, to be fair, Person C and Person A have been best friends since before they could remember.  And the police aren't exactly apathetic...to be fair, they talked about it and decided that invasion was unwarranted.

Also, Person B had allowed the police to come inspect his home before, and the police had found nothing.  This is, of course, if we are trying to match the situation in Iraq.

[KeatonKitsune]

And yet, no nation has ever gone on a mutually destructive rampage with nukes.

True. However, countries have attacked countries they had no chance of defeating before.

Just by the nature of what it takes to become a nation leader/dictator, and the people who strive for such things, anyone with that sort of power is either going to not be willing to cause the deaths of millions of people, or not be willing to lose the power they've worked to obtain just out of spite.

Well, Saddam sure seemed to have no problem with it. He denied us an inspection full knowing the consequences.

So I take it you didn't really mean it when you said: "Person B also is known to hang out with friends who hate person A, and who have recently shot person A in the face with a big gun"?

No, I meant that. But I am clumping terrorism together, be it specifically Al Queda or other terrorist organizations.

I'd agree with you that the UN is not a police-type authority, but I would still say it's the highest authority available.  So rather than calling the UN analogous to police, I'd like to redraw the analogy a bit.  Instead of persons A and B being just dudes living in the same house, let's say they live in an apartment complex.  Rather than calling the apathetic police, person A consults with a number of other people in the apartment complex, and none of them support any sort of action against person B.

Okay. I think I can accept that.

I'm going to assume that something was left out here?

Whoops? Uh, yeah the rest of that somehow got misplaced... I blame me trying to post at work in between calls with angry people who forget their passwords.

And dangit, now I forget what I was going to say!

Now we're bringing in something totally different.  What's the analogous situation in your analogy?  Person A finds a locked up Ethiopian boy locked up and starved in the basement of Person B?

Huh? No no, separate that from the analogy, PLEASE. Y’all’ve already murky’d that thing up enough.

That was my opinion, as I did state.

Say that to the 195 member nation states...

Absolutely. Or how about I have the countless other nations, nation-states, countries, and various government and non-government organizations deliver the message?

[Adam]

True. However, countries have attacked countries they had no chance of defeating before.

But not with nukes.  Getting beat down by superior forces by conventional means is one thing.  Getting nuked to kingdom come is an entirely different level of defeat.

He denied us an inspection full knowing the consequences.

I'm going to go out on a limb here as say that Saddam probably figured he could get away with it.  It's fairly obvious that the UN wasn't about to do anything about it, and it seems to me that the US surprised most of the world when jumped the gun in the invasion.

No, I meant that. But I am clumping terrorism together, be it specifically Al Queda or other terrorist organizations.

Just for the record, I think that's probably a really bad generalization to be making.