mysteryman wrote:Quote:Incorrect. What they want is for us to stop messing with their countries and societies. Can't you see that?
OK,we will do that.
We will leave them totally alone,no food,medicine,or any thing else they get from us,no aid at all.
We will break all diplomatic ties with them,we will expell all of their diplomats from the US,we will cut them off from using any of the communications satellites that we have installed in orbit,and they wont have access to anything that was made in or made by the west.
Of course, this works both ways, as I'm sure you know. They have that black gooey stuff that we like so much.
But I think it would be a good step. Maybe even a crucial one. Because, as I have stated earlier, it isn't the terrorists that we have to negotiate with as much as the Muslims whose societies they reside in.
If we take away many of the modern conveinences that they have gotten used to, it could have the effect of showing modern Muslims just how much they have to lose by alienating the west, and provide great societal pressure to end the terrorism. At the same time, it gives the highly religious Muslims the isolation from our society and economic domination that they seem to desire.
Eventually the conflict would shift from being the US v. Them, to Them v. Themselves. Which is the way we like it. And if it doesn't shift...
Quote:
Having done that,can you give a 100% ironclad guarantee that they will never attack the US,its allies,or any other western country again?
And if they did attack again,would you support destroying them then,or would you still favor talking to them?
There are no ironclad guarantees. All we can do is do the best we can to avoid an armed conflict, but if an armed conflict comes to us after we've exhausted all options, then
so be it.
If you leave someone alone, get out of their faces, and they come right back into yours with a punch; even a good guy would drop someone on their ass. And I would expect us to do nothing different.
Cycloptichorn
Don't know how I screwed that one up but ignore 'blog to reality.
Go here instead
Sorry
Cyclo, manageable fear can be a good thing. It can help you detect your errors more promptly, and begin your corrections more promptly.
Try it! You'll like it! :wink:
I doubt it.
Quote:I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.
-Frank Herbert, Dune
Fear does not lead to good policy. It leads to irrational decisions, because fear is an emotion, not a logical construct based upon reason.
Quote:"The only thing we have to fear is fear it'self - nameless, unreasoning, unjustified, terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance."
---- FDR - First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1933
Cycloptichorn
Fear is the point of terror. Fear is the goal of terror. If you allow yourself to feel fear, to enter into a reactionary mode, you are allowing their tactics to work.
If you deny fear, you deny their power over you. You take away their weapon, make them powerless in the eyes of those who would support them.
Cycloptichorn
FROM IBC DAILY COUNTS AS OF
August 16, 2006
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
01/01/2003 through 12/31/2005 = 36,859; 36,859 / 36 = about 1,024 per month;
01/01/2003 through 05/31/2006 = 42,887;
01/01/2003 through 06/30/2006 = 43,743;
01/01/2003 through 07/31/2006 = 44,876;
01/01/2006 through 05/31/2006 = 42,920 - 36,859 = 6,061; 6,061 / 5 = about 1,213 per month;
June 2006 = 43,776 - 42,920 = 856;
July 2006 = 44,909 - 43,776 = 1133;
01/01/2003 through 08/
16/2006 =
45,399;
08/01/2003 through 08/
16/2006 =
45,399 - 44,909 = 490; (490 /
16) x 31 = about 950.
ican711nm wrote: ICAN PREDICTIONS MADE IN JUNE 2006
1,050 
Iraqi civilians died violently in June 2006.
950 Iraqi civilians died violently in July 2006.
850 Iraqi civilians died violently in August 2006.
ican
I see your still using those worthless figures from Iraqbodycount.
According to the N. Y. Times the Baghdad morgue had about 1572 bodies in June 2006 and 1855 in July. That far exceeds your 856 for June and 1133 for July.
Quote:When the tally for civilian deaths in July is added to the Iraqi government numbers for earlier months obtained by the United Nations, the total indicates that at least 17,776 Iraqi civilians died violently in the first seven months of this year, or an average of 2,539 a month.
SOURCE
Better get with it if you want any credibility.
If you want accurate information read the NYT.
Cycloptichorn wrote:
...
my emphasis added
Quote:"The only thing we have to fear is fear it'self - nameless, unreasoning, unjustified, terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance."
---- FDR - First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1933
Cycloptichorn
Franklin knew what he was talking about!
Quote:www.m-w.com
Main Entry: 1
fear
Pronunciation: 'fir
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English feren, from Old English f[AE]ran, from f[AE]r
transitive verb
1 archaic : FRIGHTEN
2 archaic : to feel fear in (oneself)
3 : to have a reverential awe of <fear>
4 : to be afraid of : expect with alarm <fear>
intransitive verb : to be afraid or apprehensive <feared>
- fear·er noun
Main Entry:
ter·ror
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r, 'te-r&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French terrour, from Latin terror, from terrEre to frighten; akin to Greek trein to be afraid, flee, tremein to tremble -- more at TREMBLE
1 : a state of intense fear
2 a : one that inspires fear : SCOURGE b : a frightening aspect <the> c : a cause of anxiety : WORRY d : an appalling person or thing; especially : BRAT
3 : REIGN OF TERROR
4 : violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection>
synonym see FEAR
- ter·ror·less /-l&s/ adjective
I fear denying my
fear will lead me to denying
reality, and if I were to even think of my denying
reality, I would be filled with
terror.
What's good for you is not good for me; what's good for me is apparently not good for you.
I can live with that! I hope you can?
Well, I could live with that, if such thoughts didn't lead to the creation of policy. I don't believe that policy should be based upon emotion, ever.
Let us say that I know that someone is trying to make me angry. Provoking me. Is the best course of action to become angry? Is this the course of action which will lead to the most productive outcome from my POV? I can tell you from personal experience that it is usually not.
Therefore, is it a large stretch to say that if the goal of terrorists is to make you feel terror, then feeling terror - and basing policy upon it - in response to their actions probably isn't a wise choice? During conflict, one wants to keep the enemy reacting to you, not the other way around; right now we are in an extremely reactionary mode.
I also enjoy the discussions, as usual.
Cycloptichorn
xingu wrote:ican
I see your still using those worthless figures from Iraqbodycount.
According to the N. Y. Times the Baghdad morgue had about 1572 bodies in June 2006 and 1855 in July. That far exceeds your 856 for June and 1133 for July.
...
Better get with it if you want any credibility.
If you want accurate information read the NYT.
I don't think the NYT is a reliable source.
The Iraqbodycount for the same period is 8,540. So if you like, multiply the IBC numbers by 2.081498829 from now on. This time that gets you 17,776.
I won't have any credibility with me if I were to trust the NYT and those news sources that base their reports on the NYT.
If because of that, I have no credibility with you, so be it. I can live with that. I hope you can.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Well, I could live with that, if such thoughts didn't lead to the creation of policy. I don't believe that policy should be based upon emotion, ever.
Let us say that I know that someone is trying to make me angry. Provoking me. Is the best course of action to become angry? Is this the course of action which will lead to the most productive outcome from my POV? I can tell you from personal experience that it is usually not.
Therefore, is it a large stretch to say that if the goal of terrorists is to make you feel terror, then feeling terror - and basing policy upon it - in response to their actions probably isn't a wise choice? During conflict, one wants to keep the enemy reacting to you, not the other way around; right now we are in an extremely reactionary mode.
I also enjoy the discussions, as usual.
Cycloptichorn
I don't feel
terror of terrorists; I feel
fear of terrorists.
Please remember from my last post to you, I make a distinction between fear and terror. I say fear is good
for me (e,g, fear of error) and terror is bad
for me (e.g., terror of error).
ican711nm wrote:xingu wrote:ican
I see your still using those worthless figures from Iraqbodycount.
According to the N. Y. Times the Baghdad morgue had about 1572 bodies in June 2006 and 1855 in July. That far exceeds your 856 for June and 1133 for July.
...
Better get with it if you want any credibility.
If you want accurate information read the NYT.
I don't think the NYT is a reliable source.
The Iraqbodycount for the same period is 8,540. So if you like, multiply the IBC numbers by 2.081498829 from now on. This time that gets you 17,776.
I won't have any credibility with me if I were to trust the NYT and those news sources that base their reports on the NYT.
If because of that, I have no credibility with you, so be it. I can live with that. I hope you can.
The NYT is reporting the Baghdad morgue figures. Are you saying the Baghdad morgue is lying?
xingu wrote:
...
The NYT is reporting the Baghdad morgue figures. Are you saying the Baghdad morgue is lying?
No! I am saying I don't trust the NYT. Therefore, I am not confident that the NYT is accurately reporting the Baghdad morgue figures even though that's what the NYT is alleging it's reporting.
ican711nm wrote:xingu wrote:
...
The NYT is reporting the Baghdad morgue figures. Are you saying the Baghdad morgue is lying?
No! I am saying I don't trust the NYT. Therefore, I am not confident that the NYT is accurately reporting the Baghdad morgue figures even though that's what the NYT is alleging it's reporting.
There is no reason to suspect that what the NYT reported is inaccurate. Does your source give the Baghdad morgue figures for June and July?
There certainly hasn't been any evidence showing that the NYT inflated the numbers, has there?
Cycloptichorn
ican711nm wrote:xingu wrote:
...
The NYT is reporting the Baghdad morgue figures. Are you saying the Baghdad morgue is lying?
No! I am saying I don't trust the NYT. Therefore, I am not confident that the NYT is accurately reporting the Baghdad morgue figures even though that's what the NYT is alleging it's reporting.
Ican .... what possible macabre interest could you have in dead Iraqis? If you could get an accounting with 100 % accuracy ........ wtf would you do with it.
Just curious
Not a Clue
By Charley Reese
08/26/06 "Information Clearing House" -- - To get a better idea of what ails the world, let's use our imagination to transport ourselves into outer space. From there, we can look down on Earth not as an American or as a European, but as a disinterested alien.
We see a collection of sovereign nations - some large, some small, some powerful and some weak. We also see that some of the powerful nations do not respect the sovereignty of some of the others.
For example, by what right do the United States and the Europeans tell Iran it cannot enrich uranium? Other nations enrich uranium. Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and it grants the right to enrich uranium. Where does the United States get off telling the Iranians they can't do it?
Oh, the U.S. claims Iran wants to build nuclear weapons. Well, first and foremost, Iran denies that, and there is no proof to the contrary. But suppose Iran does want to build nuclear weapons. Why shouldn't it? We have nukes. The British, the French, the Russians, the Chinese, the Indians, the Pakistanis and the Israelis all have nuclear weapons. Why shouldn't Iran? For that matter, what right does anyone have to tell the North Koreans they can't have nukes and can't even test their missiles? Everybody else tests the missiles.
What you see is that the United States and some of the European states are still trying to run the world to suit them, even though formal colonialism has been a long time dead. President Bush seems to think that he has the right to engineer regime change in any country he chooses. The U.S. record on regime change is poor. One reason so many Iranians hate us is because we engineered a regime change in the 1950s that threw out their elected nationalist leader and replaced him with the Shah. A lot of Iranians were executed, tortured and imprisoned before the Iranian people could finally get rid of him.
What right do we have to tell Syria and Iran that they can't supply arms to Hezbollah? We supply arms to Israel. In fact, we are about the world's largest arms peddler. Mr. Bush calls Hezbollah a terrorist organization. The government of Lebanon and the European Union do not. Just because an American politician sticks a label on a group of people doesn't mean those people lose all of their rights.
I don't think the world will know peace until all the nations of the world agree to respect each other's sovereignty. That means no sanctions, no externally arranged coups, no invasions, no refusal to talk. We would do much better if we talked to the Iranians and North Koreans and, while acknowledging their right to nuclear technology, offered incentives - including a security guarantee - not to develop it. You know, of course, that the U.S. refuses to talk to the Iranians and the North Koreans and has refused their requests for security guarantees. Countries don't like to be "dissed" any more than individuals do.
I've been accused by some right-wingers of not liking America. As usual, they have it wrong. I love America, but I don't like this present administration one bit. I think the Bushies are a dangerous combination of ignorance and arrogance, and that they act in a reckless manner. They ignore what they should pay attention to and pay attention to what they should ignore.
Bush seems intent on pursuing regime change in Syria and Iran. If he persists, he will likely unleash a regional war, the consequences of which will be catastrophic.
What have you gotten for your $300 billion, your 2,600 dead, your 8,000 seriously maimed in Bush's ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Stability? Don't make me laugh. Security? America is hated in more parts of the world today than at any time in its history. What has Bush done right?
Before you resurrect the slogan "Stay the course," remember that one of the definitions of insanity is to keep doing the wrong thing. Let's face it, folks. We elected ourselves a disaster. Bush didn't understand the world when he was elected; he doesn't now; and when he goes home to Crawford, Texas, he will still be puzzled by it all.
Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years
© 2006 by King Features Syndicate, Inc
I've enjoyed my discussion with you.
