DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> "Let's stomp on Constitutional Amendments" thread
Pages:   ... ...
Showing posts 151 - 175 of 659, (reverse)
AuthorThread
05/31/2013 03:30:39 PM · #151
I want to go back to the "signature strikes". Are you ok with these Brennan? I assume there is some line where you call "uncle". I want to know where it is.

And you never did mention what you thought about Cambodia and Nixon...

Message edited by author 2013-05-31 15:31:17.
05/31/2013 03:36:06 PM · #152
So if I answer your direct questions will that increase the hope that you might answer mine?
05/31/2013 03:53:49 PM · #153
Originally posted by BrennanOB:

So if I answer your direct questions will that increase the hope that you might answer mine?


I'll tell you what. At this point I'm a bit lost on which questions are addressed and which aren't. So if you repeat them, I'll give you my take.

Message edited by author 2013-05-31 15:54:07.
05/31/2013 05:26:11 PM · #154
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The "war on terror" is not synonymous with Iraq. It was much larger. Iraq could have been a war on terror had our intelligence been correct (but it wasn't and that should be a cautionary tale about making remote decisions based on intelligence).


The Iraq War had nothing to do with intelligence failures. Cheney and some others in the Bush Administration wanted to attack Iraq first, before even getting into Afghanistan. There wasn't any amount of accurate intelligence that was going to dissuade them from going into Iraq. So I don't understand your point here at all.
05/31/2013 05:30:13 PM · #155
The Cold War was war disguised as peace. Countries invaded or maneuvered into civil wars.

The War on Terror is peace disguised as war. Civil rights sacrificed because it's "wartime."
05/31/2013 06:59:39 PM · #156
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The "war on terror" is not synonymous with Iraq. It was much larger. Iraq could have been a war on terror had our intelligence been correct (but it wasn't and that should be a cautionary tale about making remote decisions based on intelligence).


The Iraq War had nothing to do with intelligence failures. Cheney and some others in the Bush Administration wanted to attack Iraq first, before even getting into Afghanistan. There wasn't any amount of accurate intelligence that was going to dissuade them from going into Iraq. So I don't understand your point here at all.


All I can do to respond is to go search out an animated .GIF of the Kool-Aid guy busting through a wall.
05/31/2013 07:31:50 PM · #157
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The "war on terror" is not synonymous with Iraq. It was much larger. Iraq could have been a war on terror had our intelligence been correct (but it wasn't and that should be a cautionary tale about making remote decisions based on intelligence).


The Iraq War had nothing to do with intelligence failures. Cheney and some others in the Bush Administration wanted to attack Iraq first, before even getting into Afghanistan. There wasn't any amount of accurate intelligence that was going to dissuade them from going into Iraq. So I don't understand your point here at all.


All I can do to respond is to go search out an animated .GIF of the Kool-Aid guy busting through a wall.


Well, that animation would certainly reflect your level of intelligence.
05/31/2013 08:25:14 PM · #158
Oh! Yeah!
05/31/2013 10:13:22 PM · #159
I guess the bleeding heart liberal finally bled out. :(

//www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/17/us-killings-tragedies-pakistan-bug-splats
06/01/2013 03:08:53 AM · #160
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by Mike:

imagine if a foreign nation a conducted drone attacks that collaterally killed civilians here in the US.


OK I have done that. Now I wonder is that substantially better or worse than having your country invaded and occupied, foreign soldiers speeding through the streets of your hometown.


This just seems like such odd reasoning. Imagine I cut your hand off. Now imagine I cut your whole arm off. Now are you more willing to let me cut your hand off?


Given that those are really my two options? Hell yes.
06/01/2013 12:46:06 PM · #161
Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by Mike:

imagine if a foreign nation a conducted drone attacks that collaterally killed civilians here in the US.


OK I have done that. Now I wonder is that substantially better or worse than having your country invaded and occupied, foreign soldiers speeding through the streets of your hometown.


This just seems like such odd reasoning. Imagine I cut your hand off. Now imagine I cut your whole arm off. Now are you more willing to let me cut your hand off?


Given that those are really my two options? Hell yes.


Not often that I wholeheartedly agree with 21.gif Cory, but I am with him on this one.

Ray
06/01/2013 03:37:34 PM · #162
Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by Mike:

imagine if a foreign nation a conducted drone attacks that collaterally killed civilians here in the US.


OK I have done that. Now I wonder is that substantially better or worse than having your country invaded and occupied, foreign soldiers speeding through the streets of your hometown.


This just seems like such odd reasoning. Imagine I cut your hand off. Now imagine I cut your whole arm off. Now are you more willing to let me cut your hand off?


Given that those are really my two options? Hell yes.


Not often that I wholeheartedly agree with 21.gif Cory, but I am with him on this one.

Ray


You guys are so trusting. Good luck defending the rest of your appendages with one hand.
06/01/2013 05:06:12 PM · #163
Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by Mike:

imagine if a foreign nation a conducted drone attacks that collaterally killed civilians here in the US.


OK I have done that. Now I wonder is that substantially better or worse than having your country invaded and occupied, foreign soldiers speeding through the streets of your hometown.


This just seems like such odd reasoning. Imagine I cut your hand off. Now imagine I cut your whole arm off. Now are you more willing to let me cut your hand off?


Given that those are really my two options? Hell yes.


Not often that I wholeheartedly agree with 21.gif Cory, but I am with him on this one.

Ray


You guys are so trusting. Good luck defending the rest of your appendages with one hand.


The issue has nothing to do with trust... not one iota.

Take the time to re-read the options provided by the good Doc in this scenario... an arm or a hand... given the option both Cory and I opted for the hand. Pretty simple that.

Ray
06/01/2013 05:36:19 PM · #164
Ray, I think the point is that it's an illusory choice. That he who would take your hand, would surely take your arms as well, sooner or later. That the only valid course of action here would be resistance from the get-go. Kind of like, say, when the Indians trusted the government to honor treaties entered into under coercion in the first place - how well did that work out?
06/01/2013 05:45:02 PM · #165
That's not a bad interpretation, but I actually meant to have the correct answer be to ask why you were letting me cut anything off at all. :)
06/01/2013 06:07:55 PM · #166
You have blood poisoning.
Removal of the hand gives you a 50% chance of survival. Removing the whole arm 99% chance.
I for one be a one armed man.
06/01/2013 06:23:12 PM · #167
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

That's not a bad interpretation, but I actually meant to have the correct answer be to ask why you were letting me cut anything off at all. :)


If you were reaching for an impossible choice, you might have missed the mark. Those were they exact choices offered by the Revolutionary United Front durring the Sierra Leone civil war. 27,000 people had that choice "You want short sleeve or long sleeve ?" asked the man with the machete. you were forced to tell them you wanted just your hand cut off, or they took your arm as well.

Sadly it is almost impossible to think of a difficult choice that reality has not forced some people to make. It would be nice to live in a world where all the choices we were offered had a good option. But often we have to choose between two bad choices, or by not acting, accept the worst outcome.

Look at these faces and then imagine telling them "Why did you let those men cut anything off you at all?" You will note that the babies, who could not make a choice had their limbs taken off just below the shoulder.

Message edited by author 2013-06-01 18:44:34.
06/01/2013 06:46:57 PM · #168
Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

That's not a bad interpretation, but I actually meant to have the correct answer be to ask why you were letting me cut anything off at all. :)


If you were reaching for an impossible choice, you might have missed the mark. Those were they exact choices offered by the Revolutionary United Front durring the Sierra Leone civil war. 27,000 people had that choice "You want short sleeve or long sleeve ?" asked the man with the machete. you were forced to tell them you wanted just your hand cut off, or they took your arm as well.

Sadly it is almost impossible to think of a difficult choice that reality has not forced some people to make. It would be nice to live in a world where all the choices we were offered had a good option. But often we have to choose between two bad choices, or by not acting, accept the worst outcome.

Look at these faces and then imagine telling them "Why did you let those men cut anything off you at all?"


How does this relate to drone use,which is what I thought this whole analogy was about. You're painting a very ugly picture of this president yet stop short of condemning him. Is it because he's ordering others to wield the machetes?

Message edited by author 2013-06-01 18:47:47.
06/01/2013 07:43:42 PM · #169
Originally posted by yanko:

How does this relate to drone use,which is what I thought this whole analogy was about. You're painting a very ugly picture of this president yet stop short of condemning him. Is it because he's ordering others to wield the machetes?


The analogy I had hoped to draw was of being put in a situation where there are no ideal choices.

An organization exists that has declared "The coming strikes by al Qaeda, with God’s Might, will be in the heart of the land of nonbelief, America, and in France, Denmark, other countries in Europe, in the countries that helped and are helping France, and in other places that shall be named by al Qaeda at other times,". The attacks will be “strong, serious, alarming, earth-shattering, shocking and terrifying.”

We are in a position to either respond, or not. Some believe it is better to simply react after such attacks are carried out, but it has long been held that the President is responsible to defend the country against foreign threats. He has many tools with to attempt to do that from sanctions to Invasion. The difficulty with al Queda is that the threat is not being projected from a state, where tried and true methods are possible, but from an extra-national organization that is not subject to the usual responses. In short he has no good options. Accept the random terrorist slaughter, or try to slaughter them. Drones are a poor instrument, but I see no better option.

Message edited by author 2013-06-01 19:52:51.
06/01/2013 07:53:08 PM · #170
Other options always exist. Remember I am only two generations removed from pacifists. Maybe that helps explain my opinion somewhat.

I believe by the waning years of my life China will be the superpower in the world and I hate to set precedents we will be helpless to stop when that day comes.
06/01/2013 08:08:21 PM · #171
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Other options always exist. Remember I am only two generations removed from pacifists. Maybe that helps explain my opinion somewhat.


What other option? Wishing is not a choice. If you could name some better method of carrying the fight to the enemy, then that would be a discussion, but to simply state that there must be something better is a hollow statement.

The path of pacifism is at least consistent, however as Gandhi's advice to the Jews of Germany during the second world war showed, it doesn't work well when your enemy sees your utter destruction as a worthy goal.

06/01/2013 09:20:31 PM · #172
A policy of isolation/containment for the terrorists along with a policy fostering a continued relationship with the Pakistani government. A clear third option and one I don't think you have the foresight or knowledge to declare it an automatic failure.

Let's move things closer to home. If we had knowledge of the Boston marathon bombings before they happened, would it be a viable option to send a special forces team into Southie to put two bullets into the heads of our perps?
06/01/2013 09:26:30 PM · #173
Well, the GOAL isn't to "kill terrorists", is it? It's to stop acts of terror from happening. I don't actually see how "killing terrorists" as a national policy accomplishes that; the more you kill, the more you breed, kind of like sowing the dragon's teeth...
06/01/2013 10:16:20 PM · #174
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

kind of like sowing the dragon's teeth...

Not sure what that means, but you're much, MUCH older than I thought.
06/01/2013 11:33:40 PM · #175
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

kind of like sowing the dragon's teeth...

Not sure what that means, but you're much, MUCH older than I thought.

Reference Greek mythology, Jason and the Argonauts, Cadmus and Thebes:

Originally posted by wiki:

In Greek myth, dragon's teeth feature prominently in the legends of the Phoenician prince Cadmus and Jason's quest for the Golden Fleece. In each case, the dragon's teeth, once planted, would grow into fully armed warriors.

Cadmus was the bringer of literacy, civilization, killed the sacred dragon that guarded the spring of Ares. The goddess Athena told him to sow the teeth, from which sprang a group of ferocious warriors called the spartoi. He threw a precious jewel into the midst of the warriors, who turned on each other in an attempt to seize the stone for themselves. The five survivors joined with Cadmus to found the city of Thebes.

The classical legends of Cadmus and Jason have given rise to the phrase "to sow dragon's teeth." This is used as a metaphor to refer to doing something that has the effect of fomenting disputes.


Message edited by author 2013-06-01 23:34:26.
Pages:   ... ...
Current Server Time: 06/16/2019 03:08:54 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2019 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 06/16/2019 03:08:54 PM EDT.