billvon 3,008 #201 March 12, 2003 >As to your thought that "many things we've been hearing are > inaccurate", I would pose that yes, from all sides, we have >inaccurate data. Not only is the data inaccurate, any conclusions > based on inaccurate data must also be inaccurate. But what I >was addressing in my post to you was simply this: when you only >look at one data set, and not expand your consideration onto > others, you are limiting your data and thus limiting your conclusions. Which "data sets" do you assume I'm using, and what do you base that assumption on? Which are you using? >In this specific example, if I said there was evidence that 9/11 was >connected to Iraq, you would immediately lambast me and that posit. I would disagree with you if you did that. If it was presented without evidence, I would assume that you had fallen for the same brainwashing that many others have. If you had good evidence, then that's not brainwashing, and it's at least worth consideration. >Look carefully at what I said, Bill....and you will not see the > word "uncaring". From your post: "the only action which you care about speaks to isolationism." OK, now you're playing word games, and I'm not too interested in them - nor am I interested in you telling me what I care about and don't care about. If you want to talk about Iraq, then by all means, do so. If you want to talk about me, well, I'm flattered, but perhaps PM's would be better for that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #202 March 12, 2003 Richard, I'm more concerned about the casual assassination of world leaders. I generally don't think that is a business we should be in. I'm not blind to the fact that it happens, but I'd prefer we not participate. You're right that you can't really defend against suicide bombers, but on the other hand, I don't believe that we should have a "Screw the whole world, we are #1" attitude either. Plenty of countries have found a middle ground. It would be the better and nobler thing to be a powerful nation and not abuse the power. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #203 March 12, 2003 http://www.msnbc.com/news/850567.asp?0cv=CB10 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #204 March 12, 2003 Kim or whatever his name is has to be the dumbest bastard alive... His mouth is writing checks his body can't cash.. Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #205 March 12, 2003 Quote I would disagree with you if you did that. If it was presented without evidence, I would assume that you had fallen for the same brainwashing that many others have. If you had good evidence, then that's not brainwashing, and it's at least worth consideration. So again, what sources would you consider evidence that I could produce? I mean, neither of us are privy to UN/US intel, right? (I know I'm not). So it would have to be public media. How about PBS? You mentioned the WA Post as a source you used in the past to present something. May I use the same calibre of source? Please, name your "credible" sources so that I can search them out there and see if it meets your criterion for accuracy. That way, if there is something, I can show it to you without you immediately dismissing it out of hand, without you "disagreeing" with it before you have the time to check it out... Quote Which "data sets" do you assume I'm using, and what do you base that assumption on? Which are you using? I'm not assuming anything, Bill...I am saying that there is inaccurate data all around, from all sides (including mine...) Disinformation is a great tactic during wartime, right? Should someone use inaccurate data, then it follows logically that the conclusions would be inaccurate, as well. Not a personal critique, not at all... It's like if you don't balance your checkbook correctly, and you make the conclusion that you had enough money in your account to buy a sofa. You write a check, and now discover you don't have the money. That was an inaccurate conclusion based on inaccurate data. And when you have a chance, could you please link for me the reports about the increase in terrorism that you have referred to? Not that I doubt you (let me be very clear and concise...I don't doubt you!!!Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #206 March 12, 2003 North Korea is going to get nuked.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rgoper 0 #207 March 12, 2003 QuoteKim or whatever his name is has to be the dumbest bastard alive... he's in the top 5, that's for sure. but i wouldn't take the swarthy little bastard lightly either. i'm more concerned about him than i am iraq or sadaam, but you can bet, that situation is being monitored right now.--Richard-- "We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #208 March 12, 2003 Quotei'm more concerned about him than i am iraq or sadaam, but you can bet, that situation is being monitored right now. At this point I agree... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,460 #209 March 12, 2003 QuoteNorth Korea is going to get nuked.. WTF? Wasn't it heated enough already in here? Are you looking forward to that? Or do you simply live in a part of the US that's insignificant enough that it's unlikely to be attacked, so it's OK to say whatever you feel like. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #210 March 12, 2003 Quote Are you looking forward to that? There seem to be three different groups here. 1) Those who are against war, no matter what. 2) Those who see war as a possibility when other options fail. 3) Those who just want to see the world on fire for some bizarre reason. I understand the first group, am a part of the second, and fear the insanity of the third. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #211 March 12, 2003 QuoteNorth Korea is going to get nuked.. Why do you think so, and who do you think will do it? And yes, I am aware of the situation. I just found this comment to be really scary, and would like to understand why you think that, Rob. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #212 March 12, 2003 QuoteOr do you simply live in a part of the US that's insignificant enough that it's unlikely to be attacked, so it's OK to say whatever you feel like. Pretty ignorant statement.. Kim won't back down.. In my opinion he is the type that will force himself to get nuked.. Maybe not by us but by his neighbors. Of course I am not looking forward to it.. But his ass is going to get nuked. That is where he is heading.. One way ticket to an ass whoopin... Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #213 March 12, 2003 I agree.. IT is scary.. It is actually making me uncomfortable.. China or Japan might do it.. Who knows.. This guy is one a one way path to self distruction. Like he is looking to go out with a bang.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #214 March 12, 2003 Quote Main Entry: war·mon·ger Pronunciation: 'wor-"m&[ng]-g&r, -"mä[ng]- Function: noun Date: 1590 : one who urges or attempts to stir up war : JINGO - war·mon·ger·ing /-g(&-)ri[ng]/ noun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #215 March 12, 2003 North Korea said the U.S.-South Korean war games — which the Stealth planes were to join — would make the “Korean peninsula so tense that a nuclear war may break out any moment.” This guy is looking for a reason.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #216 March 12, 2003 So he can fire missiles across the sea of Japan announced but when we want to practice scheduled war games OH HELL NO. We are trying to start a nuclear war.. This guy is an asshole.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyingferret 0 #217 March 12, 2003 Agreed, he is escalating with every move. We are simply covering our ass right now.-- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wildblue 7 #218 March 12, 2003 QuotePretty ignorant statement.. You've got room to talk. Yeah, the guy is off in the head, but I doubt anything will come to a Nuclear war. Most people aren't that far off their rocker that they'd just start lobbing these things around. And everyone seems to think that one madman in charge is going to launch all sorts of shit by himself. You think the people below him want to die? If he said "Launch 'em!!" how many people under him would comply? Knowing they were sealing their fate. Besides, he's not that stupid - we gave him money once to settle down, I'm sure we'll do it again and he'll be happy. If I could walk out my front door with a shotgun, and have the guy two blocks down give me $1,000 to go back inside... hell, I'd do it a few times a month.it's like incest - you're substituting convenience for quality Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #219 March 12, 2003 I have a feeling their nuclear facility is going to have a freak accident soon?? KABOOOOM!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,008 #220 March 12, 2003 >So again, what sources would you consider evidence that I could >produce? How about a report from the UN or NATO? Or something from the CIA (at least a report that hasn't been discredited yet?) Or a report from an independent news organization? (AP or Reuters) Or even a regular media news source. I tend to trust 'outside' sources more, like the BBC, since they're largely disconnected from US influences. But even local sources, like the NYTimes, Washington Post, FOX News - at least their sources are usually verifiable, even if their stories are often slanted to fit their editorial stance. >It's like if you don't balance your checkbook correctly, and you make > the conclusion that you had enough money in your account to buy a > sofa. You write a check, and now discover you don't have the > money. That was an inaccurate conclusion based on inaccurate data. That's right on! And German propaganda experts notwithstanding, if you repeat "I have enough money . . . I have enough money" it doesn't actually _get_ you any more money. But it might help you to get away with writing bad checks. Like someone else said - when you hear something from any source that has a stake in what you believe, trust but verify. >And when you have a chance, could you please link for me the >reports about the increase in terrorism that you have referred to? Here are a few from various sources: From MSNBC : "In a closed-door Oct. 2, 2002, report to the Senate Intelligence Committee, later declassified, the CIA concluded that while Baghdad was drawing a line against going after U.S. targets directly, that would immediately change once an invasion began. The report concluded that “Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists (to use unconventional weapons to attack) the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a larger number of victims with him.” Asked that day on the likelihood of Saddam doing this, CIA Director Tenet replied: “Pretty high, in my view.” From Fortune magazine: "Maryland's Shibley Telhami, who organizes extensive public-opinion soundings in the Arab world, believes it is likely that a war with Iraq would result, at least in the short run, in an increase in terrorism throughout the Middle East, directed at any regime--Egypt, Jordan, the other Gulf monarchies--seen as supporting us, and inevitably bring the suicide-bomber phenomenon to U.S. shores." From Shibley himself: "It seems then that Hussein, not the fear of terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction, is dictating U.S. policy. Indeed, many states that have policy differences with the U.S. may now increase their drive to procure nuclear weapons as the only way to deter American power. Countering this drive through military means alone probably would increase states' sponsorship of terrorism: If they are to be targets anyway, their easiest method of response is terrorism. We are capable of destroying many enemies, including Iran, Iraq, North Korea and more, but we do not have the resources to bring stability or the desired outcome in every region after such wars. And instability is where terrorism thrives." Igor Ivanov, the Russian Foreign Minister, thinks this too: "We consider that if force is used or a war starts as far as Iraq is concerned, that will complicate the situation in other regions around the world, including Afghanistan. . .This situation of course would be used by different terrorist extremist organisations who are interested in destabilising the situation in different regions of the world." Apparently this is not too hard for people to believe, according to a CNN/Time poll: "As a consequence of war, majorities believe there would be an economic recession, that oil prices would go up, that the threat of terrorism against Americans would increase, and that the Mideast would become more unstable. " >As always, I am curious to reading the data set. I would recommend "the threatening storm: the case for war against Iraq" by Kenneth Pollack. It's a very comprehensive listing of our problems with Hussein. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #221 March 12, 2003 QuoteYeah, the guy is off in the head, but I doubt anything will come to a Nuclear war. Man.. I hope you are right... Sadham left alone would turn into this same situation in a year... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,008 #222 March 12, 2003 >It's getting better... >Blow it up I say. . . . >North Korea is going to get nuked.. >KABOOOOM!!! You sound like a kid at Christmas! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #223 March 12, 2003 QuoteThere seem to be three different groups here. 1) Those who are against war, no matter what. 2) Those who see war as a possibility when other options fail. 3) Those who just want to see the world on fire for some bizarre reason. I understand the first group, am a part of the second, and fear the insanity of the third. Ditto Justin. Well put. Chris _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rgoper 0 #224 March 12, 2003 Quote Pretty ignorant statement Rob: although you may not agree with statements or comments by another, i call B.S. on this. please do not make inflamatory remarks about someone else's ideas. after all they are entitled to them, as you are yours. on another subject for just a moment, this has been a good thread, we have seen where just about everybody stands on world issues. you, of all of the respondents here have impressed upon me, to be in my observations one of the the most agressive individuals of all. you have the "very agressive hunter instinct" you've done a "360" as it were, and you have come from tic...tocking in iraq to "nuke the koreans" regardless on where you stand on these issues it won't have any impact on the final results in world affairs. thank god your not in the oval office. i'm inclined to go along with justin's 2nd choice in his post on the matter. lighten up Rob! --Richard-- "We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #225 March 12, 2003 Calling a statement ignorant is not calling the person ignorant... If I thought someone was ignorant I would tell them. Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
