0
   

Iran's threat. Iraq's threat. The same old BS or not?

 
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Mar, 2006 01:49 pm
Setanta wrote:
No, you are willfully ignoring what i've pointed out repeatedly, which is that, whether society depends upon policing or upon vigilantism, criminals do not expect to be apprehended, and therefore a contention that they are motivated by a perception of police effectiveness is just the self-delusional conceit of those who work in the penal industry.

So, of course, you have "won" nothing.


Yes, criminals do not expect to be apprehended. That's why they commit crimes. We agree on that point.


What I'm saying -- and what you are incomprehensibly denying -- is that effective and active law enforcement is a disincentive to crime.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Mar, 2006 01:54 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Fair enough, Walter. Not widely used, but okay. That might be the only dictionary containing that word.

Yes, your "commata" are "errata."


May I quote from the "TOEFL® - Test of English as a Foreign Language -Guide to the tests", edition 2004?

Quote:
Such shows especially when you apply for an international reputated college or university that you know the correct use of foreign words in English.


This was a note to a reprinted "Free essay" from a test, where "commata" was written down. - They paid me $100 royality for my text. (Best essay in all tests 2003/4 Embarrassed ) :wink:
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Mar, 2006 02:06 pm
Congratulations, Walter.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Mar, 2006 04:13 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Yes, criminals do not expect to be apprehended. That's why they commit crimes. We agree on that point.

What I'm saying -- and what you are incomprehensibly denying -- is that effective and active law enforcement is a disincentive to crime.


That you are unable to comprehend the conceit of the penal industry does not surprise me. There is no evidence that either the roll of punishments threatened, nor allegations of the effectiveness of police methods deter crime. You have attempted to provide no such evidence, you simply continue to assert that it is so. I've simply continued to point out that the concept of deterence is based upon assumptions without foundation, and that the bedrock assumption of deterence is negated by the criminal conviction that they will not be caught.

*****************************************
Howver, you are simply distracting the discussion, and putting a false characterization on the point i first made in alluding to burglars. O'Bill several times has asserted that whatever else one might say, Hussein will never use weapons of mass destruction because of the invasion.

This is a meaningless statement for a variety of reasons. The most glaring of them is that no womd were found after the invasion, confirming Hussein's protestations before the invasion and the reports of weapons inspectors.

But beyond that, that simple-minded statement seemed to suggest that, invasion having occured and Hussein having been toppled from power, problem solved, case closed. I responded to that with the burglar analoy to point out that Hussein personally is not the potential problem--rather, any demagoguery which relies upon the use of or the threat of the use of womd would have the means available there. Therefore, the invasion, even if it had found and scooped up truckloads of womd (which, of course, it didn't), would not have represented a definitive solution to the problem of threats of womd. So long as any nation has sufficient financial resource (and North Korea is an extreme example showing that a sufficiently effective totalitarian state can even starve its own population to secure the wherewithal), which petroleum-producing states can do in a walk, and sufficient expertise (of which almost no nation in the world today lacks the resource), then womd are possible. So that an invasion which does not lead to permanent military occupation can only be at best a postponement of the problem.

Therefore, i consider that O'Bill constantly talking about Hussein being in no position to threaten us with womd because of an effective military response is idiotic. Both because the evidence is that he was never in the position to have so threatened us (and he certainly did not publicly do so), and because such a statement ignores the future potential threat. I therefore reject O'Bill's example as a justification for military action against the Persians. Not only will the Persians be a tougher nut to crack than the Iraqis were, but the Iraq experience provides no evidence that such action will definitively remove the potential threat.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Mar, 2006 04:48 pm
Setanta wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Yes, criminals do not expect to be apprehended. That's why they commit crimes. We agree on that point.

What I'm saying -- and what you are incomprehensibly denying -- is that effective and active law enforcement is a disincentive to crime.


That you are unable to comprehend the conceit of the penal industry does not surprise me. There is no evidence that either the roll of punishments threatened, nor allegations of the effectiveness of police methods deter crime. You have attempted to provide no such evidence, you simply continue to assert that it is so. I've simply continued to point out that the concept of deterence is based upon assumptions without foundation, and that the bedrock assumption of deterence is negated by the criminal conviction that they will not be caught.


Simple logic: Criminals commit crimes because they are convinced they will not get caught. You seem to admit this.

Presume two identical cities, with a few different variables: In City A there is no visible police presence, crimes have been committed, with no arrests for many years, and in City B there is a visible police presence, and crimes have been committed and there have been several arrests over the years for these crimes.

Now, you seem to be arguing that the fact of the incidents of arrests in City B will have no effect on deterring crime in City B, and the crime rate will remain the same in both cities, everything else being equal.

Yet logic dictates that criminals would flourish in City A, where there is no police presence, since criminals there would have a greater sense of freedom to commit their criminal acts, because they would have little reason to fear getting caught. I don't need to present any evidence ... logic shows my thesis is correct.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Mar, 2006 04:52 pm
Your excerises in self-justifying "logic" notwithstanding, i intend no longer to be distracted by this foolish argument which you continually attempt to foster, and for which you have provided not a shred of evidence.

My point was clear, and i've repeated it. It was germane to the topic of whether or not it were reasonable to attempt a military action against the Persians. If you care to address that topic, i'm willing to continue to discuss that. I have no further interest in the conceits of employees of the penal industry.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Mar, 2006 04:54 pm
Setanta wrote:
I have no further interest in the conceits of employees of the penal industry.


You must have me confused with Walter Hinteler.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Mar, 2006 04:56 pm
No confusion at all. You allege the efficacy of deterence. You are an employee of the penal industry. You provide no evidence of the efficacy of deterence, you simply make a specious appeal to "logic."

You continue to side-step the topic of the thread. I submit that your purpose is to distract, because you have nothing to offer to the discussion.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Mar, 2006 04:59 pm
Setanta wrote:
No confusion at all. You allege the efficacy of deterence. You are an employee of the penal industry. You provide no evidence of the efficacy of deterence, you simply make a specious appeal to "logic."

You continue to side-step the topic of the thread. I submit that your purpose is to distract, because you have nothing to offer to the discussion.


The last time I checked I was not an employee of the penal industry.

My purpose was to point out the absurdity of your position.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Mar, 2006 05:00 pm
Then you have failed of your purpose, law-boy.

Care to discuss the topic of the thread?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Mar, 2006 05:13 pm
Setanta wrote:
Then you have failed of your purpose, law-boy.

Care to discuss the topic of the thread?


<gasp> I've "failed of my purpose"? What purpose is that? My "special purpose"? Laughing

Setanta wrote:
You provide no evidence of the efficacy of deterence, you simply make a specious appeal to "logic."


Laughing A "specious appeal" to logic?

If you think it's specious, show me why. Show me the error of my logical analysis.


I'd love to discuss the topic of this thread. If you don't think police presence or stepped up arrests have an affect on crime, then it's no surprise that you would not think the Iran nuclear "problem" could be solved by a few well placed bombs.

Let me ask you the question I've posed on another thread: Do you think the US should allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Mar, 2006 05:28 pm
A silly continuationof your vain attempt to introduce more specifics of the deterance argument for policing is not germane to the issue of whether or not the United States invasion of Iraq has had a deterrent effect. The evidence of Iran is that it has not. I have little reason to believe, as i've already pointed out, that the United States can ultimately prevent the Persians or anyone else from having nuclear weapons, short of a permanent occupation of their territory--which i don't believe the American people will tolerate. Had you been paying attention--and the evidence is that you haven't--i've already pointed out that we cannot by an other means than military occupation prevent people with the will and the wherewithal from acquiring such weapons. The weight of world opinion might work with nations which remain engaged with the global community. As regards the Persians, we have no such authority, because we have so consistently tried to make the pariahs.

Your "few well placed bombs" [sic] will solve nothing, and will likely make solutions even more remote through the effect of alienation specifically of the Persians, and of Muslims in general. In fact, the likeliest consequence of the Shrub's idiotic policies is to make it clear to the world that we are impotent in the matter of preventing nuclear proliferation.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Mar, 2006 05:54 pm
I see the folly of your argument, and don't blame you a bit for wanting to move on to a different topic.

Setanta wrote:
A silly continuationof your vain attempt to introduce more specifics of the deterance argument for policing is not germane to the issue of whether or not the United States invasion of Iraq has had a deterrent effect. The evidence of Iran is that it has not. I have little reason to believe, as i've already pointed out, that the United States can ultimately prevent the Persians or anyone else from having nuclear weapons, short of a permanent occupation of their territory--which i don't believe the American people will tolerate. Had you been paying attention--and the evidence is that you haven't--i've already pointed out that we cannot by an other means than military occupation prevent people with the will and the wherewithal from acquiring such weapons. The weight of world opinion might work with nations which remain engaged with the global community. As regards the Persians, we have no such authority, because we have so consistently tried to make the pariahs.


It has certainly had the effect of showing to the world that we are not a paper tiger. If Iran ever questioned the willingness of the US to take military action against its pursuit of nuclear weapons, it certainly has reason to pause following Afghanistan and Iraq. I think it's certainly possible that a few well-placed bombs would do the trick, and you have not produced any evidence to the contrary. It seemed to do the trick with Iraq, wouldn't you agree?

Quote:
Your "few well placed bombs" [sic] will solve nothing, and will likely make solutions even more remote through the effect of alienation specifically of the Persians, and of Muslims in general. In fact, the likeliest consequence of the Shrub's idiotic policies is to make it clear to the world that we are impotent in the matter of preventing nuclear proliferation.


What about the "few well placed bombs" from Israel, and their effect upon Iraq's nuclear ambitions?

You obviously fear alienating the Persians more than you do their having nuclear weapons. But if diplomacy fails, and Iran continues its quest for nukes, someone needs to take out their capability for doing so, and if that job falls to the US, so be it. Your argument that doing so would "make it clear to the world that we are impotent in the matter of preventing nuclear proliferation," is ridiculous. What certainly would demonstrate that would be to do nothing in the fact of Iran stepping up it's pursuit of nukes.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Mar, 2006 08:37 pm
nimh wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
I also recall reading that children were literally playing in the Nuclear dust from an H-Bomb, on the neighboring island where we moved these people (and damn near starved them to death). Many of whom are still alive today... and I believe this substantiates my claim that outside of ground zero; Nukes are not as dangerous as many believe.

This is an argument along the lines of, "well my grandpa smoked all his life and he lived till he was 90 years old, so smoking cant be dangerous like they say it is at all!"
Nimh; some believe nuclear fallout will make your skin melt off your body. My point was one of degrees. Besides; I've probably smoked a quarter of a million cigarettes myself, am healthy as a horse, and the doc tells me there's still plenty of time for body to repair any damage that may have already been done, completely. Not good; but not the end of the world, if you know what I mean.

Farmerman: Thanks for the further clarification, but you never answered if what I wrote struck you as false? I understand you think I understated, but I think you made the same mistake as Nimh: Like I explained to him; my point was one of degrees.

Setanta wrote:
All of Tico's assumption derive the enforcement establishment point of view, and assume that policing methods are uniformly effective, and that deterence has any siginificance in motivating criminals, who, once again, do not commit crime in the belief that they will be caught. Were there no police, there would be vigilantism, the "hue and cry" and the rush to nearest lamppost for a lynching. Which would not alter that criminals, rarely ever members of our brightest and best, do not commit crimes in the belief that they will be caught. So, in fact . . .

No, i know nothing of the sort.

You've won nothing, Tico, and you will win nothing. Even if you convince yourself that you are indeed, legendary in your own mind, what do you expect to "win?"
Laughing Tico made his point in spades; admit it.

Setanta wrote:
No, you are willfully ignoring what i've pointed out repeatedly, which is that, whether society depends upon policing or upon vigilantism, criminals do not expect to be apprehended, and therefore a contention that they are motivated by a perception of police effectiveness is just the self-delusional conceit of those who work in the penal industry.

So, of course, you have "won" nothing.
While you did sufficiently concede Tico's point that "criminals who don't think they'll be caught commit more crime; you make an even more ridiculous contention throughout your argument. Walter, help me out here… Criminals do not come in a one-size-fits-all package and your generalizations are naïve at best; willfully ignorant at worst. True; some criminals, perhaps even a majority, commit their crimes with feelings of impunity. Also true; some would-be criminals are actually "scared straight" by the threat of law enforcement. Most criminals are most likely somewhere in between the poles. Did you ever buy a bag of weed? Or know someone who did? Did they never worry about getting caught? Your contention is utter nonsense and asking Tico to prove the deterrence of law enforcement is just about the dumbest grasp at a straw I've ever seen. Newsflash to the deliberately obtuse: Law enforcement reduces crime. Rolling Eyes

Setanta wrote:
No confusion at all. You allege the efficacy of deterence. You are an employee of the penal industry. You provide no evidence of the efficacy of deterence, you simply make a specious appeal to "logic."

You continue to side-step the topic of the thread. I submit that your purpose is to distract, because you have nothing to offer to the discussion.
Laughing You barged in with accusations of dimwittedness, brainlessness and idiocy (all descriptions that fit your own arguments better than anyone else's)… with the obvious intention to incite an argument. Tico merely demonstrated the error in your ways, handily at that. In typical Setanta fashion; once boxed in a corner with your Strawmen exposed; you revert to thinly veiled Ad Hominem and attempt to paint your opponent as the villain… instead of conceding the obvious flaws in the argument you introduced.

Ticomaya wrote:
The last time I checked I was not an employee of the penal industry.

My purpose was to point out the absurdity of your position.
Which you did in spades.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Mar, 2006 05:58 am
We went in and (well placed is debateable considering how many civillians have gotten killed) bombed Iraq, they may still seek WMD and the place sure isn't stable for anybody in Iraq or the rest of the world.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-wowmd0310,0,5844426.story?coll=ny-top-headlines


Quote:
March 10, 2006

Official: Iraq may still seek WMDs

WASHINGTON -- A former top CIA official said Thursday that despite the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, Iraq is likely to be looking for weapons of mass destruction within the next five to 10 years.

Paul Pillar, who until last year was in charge of intelligence assessments for the Middle East, said the CIA warned the Bush administration before the Iraq invasion in 2003 that a change of regimes would not necessarily solve any WMD problem.



With this administration at the head, I doubt we would do any better in Iran. If Iran needs to be dealt with I hope it is more than a US/UK effort.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Mar, 2006 06:04 am
I have said it before and I will say it again...
The US and the UN will do nothing about Irans nuke program except talk.
IF Iran develops nuke weapons,and IF they either use them against Israel or give them to terrorists,then the UN will turn to the US and ask why we did nothing to prevent it from happening.

So,let them develop nukes.
The minute they use one,we turn Iran into a parking lot.
That is the only available option right now.
Of course,the left will then claim that we could have prevented it from happening if we had just tried to "understand" Iran.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Mar, 2006 06:23 am
If the sky falls, blame the left. Ignore what Bush is doing right now.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Mar, 2006 06:49 am
O'Bill said
Quote:
Farmerman: Thanks for the further clarification, but you never answered if what I wrote struck you as false?

I was trying to use undisputed evidence that, yes, what you wrote struck me as false. The cancer rates from the Marshall Islands is several times greater than the regional norms and clusters arround thyroid, bone, leukemias and childhood cancers that seem to reflect mutagenic properties induced by radiosisotopes (specific ones) upon previous generations .

itll be another hundred fifty years or so before the atoll is habitable. Anybody who wants to experience diving in the Bikini atoll is engaging in an irresponsible act that, when our society gets working as many want it, insurance companies will be charging outrageous premiums or will deny coverage .
So, while it has nothing to do with Saddam, it does go to the issue of credibility.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Mar, 2006 07:03 am
I have never considered China to be a "leftist" (in my opinion this term has turned into something to mean anybody in the world that don't agree with the current "right" ideology in the US) and they are one of the ones who are lagging behind and say we need to negotiate with Iran more.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060321/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_iran_nuclear

I don't think we can afford to just brush off China as "old world" right now. Don't we owe a lot of money to them?

http://democraticwhip.house.gov/docuploads/budget05_tanner.pdf
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Mar, 2006 08:12 am
I wonder why China would oppose any sanctions against Iran...

Oh, wait, here is why.

China, Iran sign oil and gas deal

As China's top oil supplier, Iran accounts for 13% of its imports

China's oil giant Sinopec Group has signed a $70 billion oil and natural gas agreement with Iran.

The deal is China's biggest energy agreement with one of the major Opec producers, the Chinese news agency Xinhuanet reported.

Under a memorandum of understanding signed on Thursday, Sinopec Group will buy 250 million tonnes of liquefied natural gas over 30 years from Iran and develop the giant Yadavaran field, said the news agency.

Iran is also committed to export 150,000 barrels per day of crude oil to China for 25 years at market prices after commissioning of the field.

Iran's oil minister, Bijan Zanganeh, who is on a two-day visit to Beijing to pursue closer ties, said Iran is China's biggest oil supplier and wants to be its long-term business partner.

Official figures show that China imported 226 million tonnes of oil in 2003, about 13% coming from Iran.

Beijing expects to secure foreign energy supplies to fuel its economy, which has turned China into a major oil importer. China continues to suffer severe power shortages.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 06/25/2022 at 09:04:05