uncomfortable information

[Ronald Reagan]

http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20031210_1042.html

[The Mad Hatter]

Let me give the neocon/Wolfy/Rummy response:

Who cares?

[Moe Szyslak]

The U.S. and British militaries don't count civilian casualties from their wars, saying only that they try to minimize civilian deaths.



Didn't we count the deaths from 9-11?

[2pac Shakur]

We don't need to count.
But we are VERY interested in that 61,000 figure for number of civilians killed by Saddam.
War Crimes are for LOSERS.

[Truth Soldier]

We do body counts based on whether or not they make us look good (unsurprising). They were used in Vietnam, I think, to show that we were "winning," until it became apparent that they didn't really do that.

[Michael Davlin]

That information did make me feel uncomfortable, RR.

[dumber]

We don't need to count.
But we are VERY interested in that 61,000 figure for number of civilians killed by Saddam.
War Crimes are for LOSERS.

It's nice to be the guy with the biggest stick.

[2pac Shakur]

We don't need to count.
But we are VERY interested in that 61,000 figure for number of civilians killed by Saddam.
War Crimes are for LOSERS.

It's nice to be the guy with the biggest stick.

Won't be the biggest forever.

[The Mad Hatter]

We don't need to count.
But we are VERY interested in that 61,000 figure for number of civilians killed by Saddam.
War Crimes are for LOSERS.

It's nice to be the guy with the biggest stick.

Won't be the biggest forever.

How dare you?! You're not qualified to be president. The official and necessary position is that the U.S. will be the most powerful nation forever (and that we can make ourselves safe through force, aggression and intimidation and diplomacy, dialogue and giving a damn about what the rest of the world thinks are a waste of time).

[Werewolf]

We don't need to count.
But we are VERY interested in that 61,000 figure for number of civilians killed by Saddam.
War Crimes are for LOSERS.

It's nice to be the guy with the biggest stick.

Won't be the biggest forever.

Who do you nominate to eventually replace America as the biggest stick?

[2pac Shakur]

We don't need to count.
But we are VERY interested in that 61,000 figure for number of civilians killed by Saddam.
War Crimes are for LOSERS.

It's nice to be the guy with the biggest stick.

Won't be the biggest forever.

Who do you nominate to eventually replace America as the biggest stick?

Maybe China. Lots can happen, who knows?
Of course, maybe we'll last forever. Like so many empires before us.

[Werewolf]

Maybe China. Lots can happen, who knows?
Of course, maybe we'll last forever. Like so many empires before us.

Well, we have pretty much lasted forever, considering the magnitude of changes seen in the last 227 years.

The Civilization computer game uses a variable number of years for each turn, in effect reflecting the speed in which the world changes. For example, in the time of the Egyptians, turns represent 20 years, but in the time of the United States, turns represent 1 year.

Personally, I wouldn't mind another nation being the dominant nation, so long as it adopted the principles of individual liberty, freedom of belief, and capitalism.

[Paddyboy1]

Maybe China. Lots can happen, who knows?
Of course, maybe we'll last forever. Like so many empires before us.

Well, we have pretty much lasted forever, considering the magnitude of changes seen in the last 227 years.

The Civilization computer game uses a variable number of years for each turn, in effect reflecting the speed in which the world changes. For example, in the time of the Egyptians, turns represent 20 years, but in the time of the United States, turns represent 1 year.

Personally, I wouldn't mind another nation being the dominant nation, so long as it adopted the principles of individual liberty, freedom of belief, and capitalism.

Stop tihnking inside the box. Why does it have to be the a dominant 'nation'? How about at some point over the next 50 years someone kills 50 million americans? I think putting this kind of bioterror or geneto-terror, or nuclear weaponry into individual, or tribal, or whatever hands rather than just in nations hands seems very reasonable. Or we could just bomb all the scientists in the world from here on out or intimidate people into stopping sharing information, or from having our enemies ever become rich. The most technologically primitive and poorest of the poor in the world - in China, in North Korea, in Pakistan, in India, live under a government with nuclear weapons. And they did during a time of non-proliferation of nukes. What do you think an illiterate Hutu tribal leader who has seen a million dead bodies might do with a means for spreading Ebola? A Colombian drug lord whose livelihood depends on drug criminilisation and nonintervention of Americans might do with a nuclear device? A 10 year old Iraqi whose mother is dead and father is in jail 20 years from now without trial or charge might do with a genetic plague.

If you ask me, bombing the North Koreans doesn't guarantee our safety. And unilaterally invading/fundinganinvasion any country we can based on arbitrary extra legal standards isn't irght. THere has to be a better way to run our military than just attacking those countries who don't do as we tell them.

[Griffin 5]

Stop tihnking inside the box. Why does it have to be the a dominant 'nation'? How about at some point over the next 50 years someone kills 50 million americans? I think putting this kind of bioterror or geneto-terror, or nuclear weaponry into individual, or tribal, or whatever hands rather than just in nations hands seems very reasonable.Stop trying so hard to be an out-of-the-box thinker. How does an individual, or tribal, or whatever, adopt the principles of individual liberty, freedom of belief, and capitalism in such a way this adoption has world-wide influence?

[IAm@Work.com]

OK, I'll take a shot -

What do you think an illiterate Hutu tribal leader who has seen a million dead bodies might do with a means for spreading Ebola?Very likely he would use it against those he sees as a threat to him. That is, others in his own region. The chance of your typical illiterate Hutu bothering the US is pretty much zero.

A Colombian drug lord whose livelihood depends on drug criminalization and nonintervention of Americans might do with a nuclear device? Most likely outcome here is that he tries to sell it for cash. Probably will try and sell it to someone who will not attack the US, as that is his marketplace, and he wouldn't want it disrupted.

A 10 year old Iraqi whose mother is dead and father is in jail 20 years from now without trial or charge might do with a genetic plague.This one is a little convoluted. If we are talking about a 10 year old, the most likely outcome of him having a genetic plague is that he would spill it on himself and cause problems in his own home. If you mean that this kid is 10 now and the question is what will he do in 20 years with a genetic plague, then there are two possibilities. If our policy in Iraq was a success he will probably present his creation for his doctorate thesis. If we were a failure he will probably attack Israel. [What is a genetic plague, by the way? Genetic things are usually spread by reproduction. If this "plague" causes the death of the recipient before they can reproduce, it will be gone in one generation.]



To be honest, I don't understand your point at all. Werewolf postulated that having some other nation emerge as more dominant than the US might not automatically be a bad thing. Your response is that you can think of odd situations where individuals have weapons and diseases at their disposal. How are the two thoughts connected? You follow by postulating that bombing North Korea doesn't guarantee our safety. Are you entering some sort of non sequitur contest?

[Tim><]

Leave PB alone. He is trying to type with one hand . . . :x

[Ronald Reagan]

Stop tihnking inside the box. Why does it have to be the a dominant 'nation'? How about at some point over the next 50 years someone kills 50 million americans? I think putting this kind of bioterror or geneto-terror, or nuclear weaponry into individual, or tribal, or whatever hands rather than just in nations hands seems very reasonable.Stop trying so hard to be an out-of-the-box thinker. How does an individual, or tribal, or whatever, adopt the principles of individual liberty, freedom of belief, and capitalism in such a way this adoption has world-wide influence?

:shake:

Our leaders only believe in those things when we make them. This is the reason for the discrepancy between our domestic policies and what we do overseas. You talk as though all politicians are there to promote "individual liberty". What a joke. They are only as good as we force them to be.

Unfortunately, for the last 50 years they've had (almost) a free hand with foreign policy. (Other than when we are getting killed for them.) Occasionally, when that occurs, we wake up and stop them.

[Harry]

Leave PB alone. He is trying to type with one hand . . . :x

Someone has a one-track mind today.