AggieDave 6 #26 October 30, 2002 I'm just going off of what you said: QuoteSame goes for WW2! All people fell victim to propaganda and went with their governments... Third times a charm eh? That is comparing WWII and the current Mid-East problems, saying that we (the US) aren't in the right, that we're leading our people with propaganda to further an obscure cause. In the end it seems you're trying to say that Hussien's an ok guy and we shouldn't be attacking him and I drew my sarcastic comment about Hitler from your previous comparison. Quotemy grandchildrens history classes will teach This is an obvious slam on what you think your grandchildren will be taught in their history classes. The books and information taught will be sought out and documented by historians in the first place, thus a slam on historians. See, I didn't pull my comments out of my ass, I was responding to what you said. Quote1)There are many versions of the same stories but 'history' could only have happened one way I disagree, there is not always a single history. Different sides of the event and differnet people in the event will have a different experience of the event. All of their experiences are valid and true, but they are different non-the-less. Current modern history is in a better place due to advances in technology, we have a better documentation of the broader events happening, thus we can say X happened in this city, but still the nitty gritty of it is that there is not a single line of events that can be defined. History is fluid. Quote) Differing sides of a war say the other is the bad guy Not always. American protests in the 1960s about Vietnam is an example, they're Americans, they're on the American side, but didn't think that they were on the rightside/good guy side. Quote3) History repeats itself Yes it does, with this fact I dont' understand your stance on the Middle East. Saddam considers himself the next Nebbaknezzer and is doing things that prove this. If you don't know who this guy was or you only know the Bible version, do some research, you'll be surprised.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skreamer 1 #27 October 30, 2002 Huh?? human lives??? I'm sure any residual effects from collateral damage will be assimilated for the greater good. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #28 October 30, 2002 QuoteThe dollar value on the destruction pales to insignificance compared to the human cost surely?????.... [Continued Sarcasm] You're funny NacMac! Value on of human life. Bwahaha. In the initial settlement between Union Carbide and the Indian government over the Bhopal incident, the value per human life was $2607. And that was an accident that killed and disabled 6520 people. If we are more selective in who we kill, we can easily drive the cost per victim down well below the expected increase in economic benefit here at home. It is all about return on investment. Any business student could tell you that! Financial Settlement / People Killed = CPB (Cost per body) If CPB < ROI (Return on Investment) per American factory worker, then start the bombing! Why do you make this whole thing seem complicated? [/Continued Sarcasm] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #29 October 30, 2002 Okay......, lets apply some risk finance to something we are all familiar with... Implied cost of averting a fatality = probability x cost of fatality lets look at Cypres... Probability of being unable to, or fogetting to open your reserve is, lets say 1 in 5000 (guessing) Value of life about 1 million pounds. (standard petrochemical value on life of expat oil worker) which gives me around 200 pounds to spend on a Cypres, which is about a quarter of the retail value of said unit. By my numbers, a Cypres doesn't make financial sense..... I still jump the Cypres tho... BTW guys, I really do like your sarcasm....Its not wasted here. -------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goose491 0 #30 October 30, 2002 Quote That is comparing WWII and the current Mid-East problems, saying that we (the US) aren't in the right, that we're leading our people with propaganda to further an obscure cause. We are leading our people with propaganda to further an obscure cause. Unless anyone remembers hearing Dubya actually say: "let's go get that oil! Did he?" Quote In the end it seems you're trying to say that Hussien's an ok guy and we shouldn't be attacking him and I drew my sarcastic comment about Hitler from your previous comparison. In the end, I made a comment about the attack on the world trade centre... As far as I know, this was Osamas doing... Not Sadams... I looked back and found no reference to Sadam being an ok guy... We shouldn't be attacking him?... Well, though not mentioned in my post, that is what this thread is sorta about init? Quote Quote my grandchildrens history classes will teach This is an obvious slam on what you think your grandchildren will be taught in their history classes. The books and information taught will be sought out and documented by historians in the first place, thus a slam on historians. In highschool, a history test asked me what started WW1... The assasination of the Arch Duke Ferdinand would not be an incorrect answer but you and I both know there was more to it than that... What started WW2?... The treaty of Versaille! Does this mean that had we not forced the Germans to pay for collateral damage incured by the planet in WW1, that WW2 would not have happened? Don't think so. There is no slam here but if this turns out to be WW3, my grandchildren will know that there was tension before 911 but they will all agree that 911 started it all... I'm not slaming you man but things like this tend to be 'simplified' for the kiddies. Quote See, I didn't pull my comments out of my ass, I was responding to what you said. see above Quote 1)There are many versions of the same stories but 'history' could only have happened one way Perceptions aside, all wars 'happened' one way. Occurances only occure once... it does not matter if your story differs from mine... there is only one way something can happen unless you are counting parallel universes lol. Quote American protests in the 1960s about Vietnam is an example, they're Americans, they're on the American side, but didn't think that they were on the rightside/good guy side. Just proves that Americans are getting smarter... However... Quote 3) History repeats itself My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #31 October 30, 2002 Let's not forget the positive impact a good bloody war will have on domestic unemployment figuresWar on Iraq &what happens in the aftermath could completely turn a stagnant economy around - remember that it's not just how much money is in an economy, it's how fast it moves from one person to another. What with the increased jobs, vacancies in the armed forces, more purchases for the arms industries and the resultant increase in average wealth as the western governments push money ever faster through the economy to finance the war, the re-election could be assured. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,434 #32 October 30, 2002 >It is very apparent where you all get you information..........ABC, >NBC, CBS, CNN. You see the same on BBC and news.com.au (australian news service.) >Buy the way, did you have the same opinion when Clinton bombed a >factory??? Why does it matter who the president is when we bomb a factory? (unless you're a rabid partisan democrat or republican of course.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #33 October 30, 2002 (unless you're a rabid partisan democrat or republican of course.) Or a rabid partisan peace loving Brit? -------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #34 October 30, 2002 Quote Value of life about 1 million pounds. Substitute $2607 and do the math again. It becomes financially unreasonable to do most medical procedures, much less providing expensive safety margins. If we can get more aggressive lawyers to squash the value down a little bit more, then we can make an economic case for discontinuing pesky things like vaccinations, safety goggles and health insurance. We'll just take our chances and pay the folks that croak. With all the savings, our economy will be booming! Forgot the smiley to indicate the sarcasm that should be obvious. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #35 October 30, 2002 Quote We'll just take our chances and pay the folks that croak. How do you think the Rockefellars got where they are today? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #36 October 30, 2002 Quote How do you think the Rockefellars got where they are today? It's the American way! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,434 #37 October 30, 2002 >That is comparing WWII and the current Mid-East problems, saying > that we (the US) aren't in the right, that we're leading our people > with propaganda to further an obscure cause. It is, by definition, not an obscure cause due primarily to the efforts of the current administration (i.e. naming them to the axis of terror, describing him as the greatest threat to US security etc.) However, there is absolutely no question that it is a concerted campaign by the current administration to demonize Hussein - unless you know of any recent Iraqi attacks against US soil lately, of course. There are people out there who are a far greater threat to the US and their allies. There are people who have greater stockpiles of chemical and nuclear weapons, and are willing to sell to terrorists (in fact, one has been named as part of the axis of evil.) There are people who have used chemical weapons on their own people. We concentrate on Hussein because he has been singled out by the administration. > In the end it seems you're trying to say that Hussien's an ok guy > and we shouldn't be attacking him . . . I don't think anyone said Hussein's an OK guy, nor is there any connection between the first part of your statement and the second. It would be poor foreign policy to attack everyone who's not an OK guy. Hussein is a bad and evil man, just as Castro was in the 1960's. We lived with Castro, despite his country posing the gravest threat to this nation's security since WWII. I would find it hard to believe that Hussein is a greater threat than a country that was about to get nuclear-tipped ICBM's that could reach most parts of the US. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #38 October 30, 2002 How many Kurds has Hussein killed, slaughtered like Hitler and the Jews? If people honestly do believe that history repeats its self and Hussein has shown he's trying to make that happen...I don't remember Castro randomly trying to kill off an entire group of people.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JDBoston 0 #39 October 30, 2002 Yes, North Korea. Don't hear much about us planning to invade them, though... ah, the sweet smell of hypocrisy. Course, I don't think that as a civilized country we could really justify subjecting our soldiers to something like kimchi. That aside, Saddam is clearly a very bad man, and I would fully support a covert campaign to assassinate him and his sons, combined with an effort to try and develop support in Iraq for some other known Iraqi leader(s) as a viable alternative. I don't think a standard 21st-century war (read: lots of new bombs, dead civilians, complete refusal to risk significant casualties doing the real work on the ground, lots of money spent, few enemy leaders killed or captured) is the answer. Joe Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skreamer 1 #40 October 30, 2002 Mike, where have you been hiding??? Did the leash finally snap or did you find a new supply of drugs? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,434 #41 October 30, 2002 >How many Kurds has Hussein killed, slaughtered like Hitler and the > Jews? Thousands. We helped him do that with aid and military planning. In fact, the envoy to Iraq during that time was Donald Rumsfeld. How many civilians did we kill during WWII with just two bombs, simply to make the war end faster? >If people honestly do believe that history repeats its self and > Hussein has shown he's trying to make that happen... Tell you what - if Iraq invades any other country we're allied with again, I'll be all for going in and destroying his country. In the meantime, he's just another in a long line of evil thugs who will eventually fall. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skreamer 1 #42 October 30, 2002 OK, if you are going to play the humanitarian angle, then how about Rwanda? Almost 1 million people got butchered there and nobody bothered invading to save anybody. Please don't tell me that Iraq is going to be invaded to protect the Kurds (or anybody else). George W. Bush is in the pockets of the oil barons. The oil barons want cheaper crude. Getting cheaper crude will make the oil barons and the consumers (ie voters) happy. Getting a second term will make George happy. This is about oil. The war on terror is giving Bush an excuse to invade Iraq and aquire and safe-guard a major source of oil. Will Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #43 October 30, 2002 Quote The war on terror is giving Bush an excuse to invade Iraq and aquire and safe-guard a major source of oil. I bet that in a secret government lab somewhere, we are trying to extract oil from steamrollered pimply teenagers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,434 #44 October 30, 2002 >That aside, Saddam is clearly a very bad man, and I would fully > support a covert campaign to assassinate him and his sons, > combined with an effort to try and develop support in Iraq for >some other known Iraqi leader(s) as a viable alternative. Dunno about that. We tried that in Afghanistan when the USSR was running things. Our money and weapons created the Taliban and Al Quaeda. It would be a shame to create Al Quaeda II in northern Iraq. Giving support to opposition groups might work, but I hope we're more careful this time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gemini 0 #45 October 30, 2002 What a bunch of hooie! To imply that the reason to go to war is for the oil is to demean the loss of lives at the WTC. Can you show us that Bush was involved in the attacks on NY and DC? Was the Taliban harboring AlQueda? In my opinion, Clinton should have taken action against the AQ long before Bush was in office, but he didn't have the moral courage to do what was right. He would rather sit behind his desk while Monica was under it! Bush's actions came in direct response to the WTC. Ask the French and Germans who has the rights to the oil in Iraq if Iraq complies with the UN. It isn't the US! They already have contracts in place. Those contracts might be voided if the Iraqi govt changes. The US can live without Iraqi oil, but apparently a few other countries con't believe they can. Blue skies, Jim Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #46 October 30, 2002 Quote OK, if you are going to play the humanitarian angle, then how about Rwanda? Almost 1 million people got butchered there and nobody bothered invading to save anybody Tried that in Somalia. And weren't the Somali's grateful for our efforts. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,434 #47 October 30, 2002 >To imply that the reason to go to war is for the oil is to demean the > loss of lives at the WTC. Uh, Gemini - Iraq was not involved with 9/11. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan both had something to do with it; despite a detailed search for a link, the administration has been unable to find one between Al Quaeda and Hussein. In general, I find people who use 9/11 for political reasons (like drumming up support for a war againt a country uninvolved in it) to be pretty sleazy. _That's_ demeaning the people who died on that day. >The US can live without Iraqi oil . . . . Really? We already buy it (our suppliers buy Iraqi oil, and we use 200,000 barrels of Iraqi oil A DAY) and our demand keeps going up. We intentionally buy the biggest fuel hogs on the road. We are unwilling to even pass laws that promote more efficient vehicles. What evidence do you have that we are willing to live with less oil? I don't think that oil is the only reason we're trying to go to war with Iraq. But countries are already divvying up the oil, and the US (yes, the US) has been promising Russia access to Iraqi oil if they do not object to a war. Access to the second largest oil field in the world is certainly one of the reasons we want to go in. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #48 October 30, 2002 Quotethe administration has been unable to find one between Al Quaeda and Hussein None the less.....I would REALLY like to know who was paying Abu Nidal's salary and exactly what he was up to when he was killed recently ,by Iraqi Secret Police, inside Iraq. Me thinks some James Bond type stuff was going on. I'm sure the "general public" will never know. Aparently, Saddam has plenty of enemies in the Islamic world. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Push 0 #49 October 30, 2002 QuoteHow many civilians did we kill during WWII with just two bombs, simply to make the war end faster? Let the historians correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the only alternative to that a full scale sea-based invasion of Japan? A-la Normandy? Which would have killed millions of Japanese "civilians" (which would indubitably participate in the fighting)? I may be wrong, but I think Truman chose the lesser of the two evils. ------ Disclaimer: I'm not disagreeing with anyone here. This is a neutral question. If you do not take the reports of Husseins stockpile of weapons and production rates as a lie, what do you think should be done? I mean, it is believeable that North Korea is stockpiling weapons as a deterrent, yes, but can you believe that of Hussein? And if not, what should be done? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Parrot 0 #50 October 30, 2002 kill one youre a murderer, kill a million youre a conquerer Heh, thats funny . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
