A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Vietnam war cost $111 billion from 1964-72. Here's a random cite pulled from Google. http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/other/stats/warcost.htm

By 1972, our government was spending about .75 billion per day. So, Vietnam cost what we were spending in about 5 months. Do you really think that the difference between 5 months' spending in Vietnam and 2 months' (and counting) spending in Iraq is so enormous that one is a "war" and the other is a "minor skirmish"?

Here's another cite discussing present value. The numbers on this vary wildly, but the conclusion is pretty uniform.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...042601601.html

1) Of course the deaths were much higher. I believe at this point we have lost one twentieth the lives we have lost in Vietnam. So to equal Vietnam we would have to stay in Iraq for another eighty years 2) You are using as an example another war where the costs were exaggerated to get us to throw in the towel. 3) the costs in terms of GNP were at least three times what we have spent so far 4) I think it is also ironic that you are using the Vietnam war as a example because the victorious Vietnamese stated that but for the American press they wouldn't have won the war. The insurgents in Iraq seem to be using the same strategy to great effect. Are you helping them? I believe we defeated ourselves in Vietnam and hope we don't defeat ourselves here.

Like I said, as war goes Iraq has been cheap in terms of lives and money compared to almost all the other wars. That is indisputable. So if you want to call it a war, you have to acknowledge that as wars go, this one has had limited casualties and has been inexpensive. If you stop calling it a war then you can start talking to me about the unprecedented death toll and the terrible costs. Do you really think that is an unreasonable statement?

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Who says I am not offended by murders, traffic deaths, etc? If the government adopted policies that increased murders or traffic deaths by 3000 people, I would oppose those policies.

Tell ya' what: Let's go to a meeting of families of soldiers who died in Iraq. You tell 10 people your "it's just a minor skirmish" theory, I'll tell 10 people my "it's a war, and should be called a war, and the cost is very high" theory. Let's see which of us offends more people.

There is a great idea. When trying to determine whether the death toll in any given military operation is acceptable in comparison to the objective achieved why don't we ask the parents of the soldiers that died in that operation. In addition, why don't we let those same parents frame the debate and be allowed to determine which terms are allowed in that debate so we can make sure we make prudent strategic and tactical military decisions in the future.

I even have a better idea. When trying to decide if we should let cops shoot suspects if they just have a suspicion they might be dangerous, why don't we let the parents of cops that have been killed by suspects frame the debate. Anyone that has the temerity to mention that the cost of insuring that suspects rights are not infringed upon, may be that some cops may have to die, be labeled offensive and not be allowed to have any influence on the debate.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
And please -- when you volunteer for the military, you and your neo-con friends can call me an armchair spectator.

I have four fraternity brothers that are career military and all have served in both Gulf Wars and I have three relatives that have served in both Gulf Wars. Each and every single one (without exception) is a NeoCon on steroids. They all make me seem like a dove. Have people had different experiences with their friends and family members in the military?

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
"relatively low," not "low." As in, relative to other wars, to which you were making comparisons. Not as in "so low that this is just a walk in the park," as you seem to think.

When you contrast it to all the hyperbole out there about the terrible cost of the war in treasure and blood, the term low seems applicable to me. Not a walk in the park, but nothing compared to the hype in the media.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch

No, the war in Afghanistan itself did that to the Soviets, not the number of dead. The body count idiocy is your own invention.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t you say (and I quote) “The Soviet Union fought a war in Afghanistan (we call that one a "war", right?) that left the nation mortally (and thankfully) wounded. How many soldiers do you think died there -- 100,000? It was only 15,000, about .1% of what the USSR lost in World War II.”

The body count in relation to Afghanistan was my invention?

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
If your conclusions are so self-evident, then others should have reached them. Please identify some publications that refer to the Iraq war as a "minor skirmish." Surely your neo-con buddies have reached the same conclusion as you.

Plenty of people have stated over and over again, in historical terms the “war” in Iraq has been relatively cheap in terms of blood and treasure. I don’t mind people calling it a war if they acknowledge it has been a cheap war. It is the people that say that it has been exorbitantly expensive and that there have been massive US casualities who shouldn’t refer to it as a war. Those statements of outlandish expense and exorbitant loss of life are only apt if you refer to it as a minor military skirmish in the Middle East and not as a war. Is that not fair?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I weep for your clients.

I weep for your hubris....do you think the fact that many felons are Democrats will offer you a safe harbour amongst comrades in the stir? Have you ever seen Oz?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky


Plenty of people have stated over and over again, in historical terms the “war” in Iraq has been relatively cheap in terms of blood and treasure. I don’t mind people calling it a war if they acknowledge it has been a cheap war. It is the people that say that it has been exorbitantly expensive and that there have been massive US casualities who shouldn’t refer to it as a war. Those statements of outlandish expense and exorbitant loss of life are only apt if you refer to it as a minor military skirmish in the Middle East and not as a war. Is that not fair?

On the cost side, please note the fact that during the Vietnam conflict as compared with the current Iraq skirmish, marginal tax rates actually went up due to War Surcharges where over the last 5 years marginal rates have gone down. the fact that Bush has kept America free from attack during the last 5 years, freed the Afghans from the Taliban, freed the Iraqis (and Kurds) from Saddam, and lowered marginal rates are evidence of the greatness of his reign. Add in the fact that the Dems lost Vietnam and it just accentuates Bush's accomplishments.

I feel good! It's morning in America, except for the Dem controlled Congress. Is Sen. Johnson still holding onto his seat despite his incapacitation?

[Sidd Finch]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Sidd Finch

No, the war in Afghanistan itself did that to the Soviets, not the number of dead. The body count idiocy is your own invention.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Spanky
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t you say (and I quote) “The Soviet Union fought a war in Afghanistan (we call that one a "war", right?) that left the nation mortally (and thankfully) wounded. How many soldiers do you think died there -- 100,000? It was only 15,000, about .1% of what the USSR lost in World War II.”

The body count in relation to Afghanistan was my invention?

You really can't read, can you? I said that the war in Afghanistan mortally wounded the Soviet Union. Not the body count -- not just the number dead -- but the war.

You respond by claiming that I said that the number of dead mortally wounded the Soviet Union.

So, I respond that the war itself, not the number of dead, mortally wounded the Soviet Union.

So you again tell me that I say that the body count itself was what mortally wounded the Soviet Union.



I'm surprised Bush didn't just adopt you. Like him, you seem to think that stubborn rejection of reality is a virtue. And that policy decisions should be based on whatever anecdote you find convenient and heart-warming.



In any event, the sheer idiocy of this thread has worn me out. You believe that any person who can tie his own shoes should recognize that we are not in a "war" in Iraq, but rather a "minor skirmish." Yet, you believe that the Admin should call it a "war," because that is necessary to get the American people to provide funding and other support for it. But, the media and everyone else should not call it a "war", because it is so obviously just a "minor skirmish."

The only question I have is whether you will put me in touch with your dealer. He must get you some really good shit.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I asked you how you would try to tell the difference between two groups of people who were saying the same things for different reasons.

Man you just love to ignore texts of posts and pretend they are not there. As I already told you in response to this point which you have conveniently ignored….

Originally posted by Spanky
I said you can tell by how they complain about the war. That was a direct and obvious answer to your post. Do I really need to spell it out for you? If someone says, "Bush hasn't given us any reason for this war", "there is no justification for this war", "we have no business being there and should pull out" "this war is immoral" etc. etc. etc. doesn't that clearly put them in your first category immediately? What pundit or so called expert has been so cryptic in their opinions that you can’t tell what their rational is for their position, or that are so cryptic you can't tell if they fall in category one or two?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You told me other things that the second group thinks. Ergo, if someone isn't thinking those things also, they are moronic, lying traitors. Of course.

You were the one who defined the two groups and said the first group was:

(1) the liberal morons who are ignorant (they don't understand how important it is that we prevail, or how cheap it would be in blood and treasure), deceitful (they mischaracterize what's happening there to fool the public), unpatriotic (willing to sacrifice the interests of the country), and partisan (they just want to make Bush look bad); and

By you own definition you stated that they could fall into category two or one. So if they don’t fall into group two……

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
In concluding that you were ducking my question, plainly I forgot your remarkable gifts of telepathy, which enable you to discover the motives of your political opponents and explain to others just how moronic and unpatriotic they are. Of course, had I remembered your Bush-like capability to look into others' souls, I wouldn't have needed to ask the question in the first place.

This is ripe. We argue for pages and pages about morality and torture. You question my values because I defend the use of torture. Since you questioned my values because I defend the use of torture in limited circumstances I ask you during that debate if you think that torture in the ticking time bomb case is “immoral’. You ignore the question twice and accuse me of not answering your questions. I finally go so far as to question your integrity for not answering the question, and so you finally answer that “it could be considered the lesser of two evils”. I ask you again if it is moral, and you say that I have some nerve to ask a question that you have already answered. Then I point out that whether it is the lesser of two evils does not answer the questions if it is moral. I also point out that if your incredulity (at my asking you a question you had already answered) was really not just a smoke screen to avoid answering the question again you would have answered the question after throwing your tantrum. But of course you didn’t answer the question after throwing your tantrum. I ask you again and you still don’t answer the question, so I go so far as to say that we shouldn’t continue the discussion unless you answer the question. Then you respond to that post by stating “I'm inclined to table the other issues raised by our posts until I understand where you're coming from on this stuff.” And of course you still have not answer to my question.

In the recent discussion, I also asked if you can name one person that has said "it is extremely important that we succeed in Iraq, and the best strategy for achieving success is pulling out." At first you ignored the question. Then after being asked again, you responded by saying that many people have. When I pointed out that my question asked you to be specific, you ignored my question (as evidenced by the quoted post).

Why the games? Why the fake tantrums? Why the smoke screens? Why dodging the questions? Why the hypocritical incredulity at me not answering your questions? Why not just answer the questions:

1) Do you think it is immoral to torture the terrorist in the ticking time bomb scenario
2) Can you name one person who takes the position that “"it is extremely important that we succeed in Iraq, and the best strategy for achieving success is pulling out."

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
1) Do you think it is immoral to torture the terrorist in the ticking time bomb scenario

Do you think it is immoral to kill a baby that you know will grow up to be a mass murderer?


If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?


Is there a point to questions like this, or have you just run out of backyard wildlife to observe?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
Why not just answer the questions:

1) Do you think it is immoral to torture the terrorist in the ticking time bomb scenario
2) Can you name one person who takes the position that “"it is extremely important that we succeed in Iraq, and the best strategy for achieving success is pulling out."

1. No. I think that it is a moral imperative to torture that terrorist.

2. Baghdad Jim McDermott?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Do you think it is immoral to kill a baby that you know will grow up to be a mass murderer?

How do you know, in absolute terms?

[Penske_Account]

NBC News: Saddam Hussein to be hanged within 36 hours.

Set your TiVos~!

A sad day for those who hate freedom, oppression and America, a joyous day for the rest of us.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
NBC News: Saddam Hussein to be hanged within 36 hours.

Set your TiVos~!

A sad day for those who hate freedom, oppression and America, a joyous day for the rest of us.

I bet these tighty-wighties have to be a few shades darker after the above news came down......

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Man you just love to ignore texts of posts and pretend they are not there. As I already told you in response to this point which you have conveniently ignored….

My question was about how you ascribe motive when people say the same things. By telling me that they say different things, you are ducking the question.

This is ripe. We argue for pages and pages about morality and torture. You question my values because I defend the use of torture. Since you questioned my values because I defend the use of torture in limited circumstances I ask you during that debate if you think that torture in the ticking time bomb case is “immoral’. You ignore the question twice and accuse me of not answering your questions.

I'm pretty sure that I've answered this before, but I can't find it with a search, so maybe I'm wrong.

First, I think the hypothetical is loaded. It posits a situation in which you know exactly what you don't know -- there is a ticking bomb, but where?

Be that as it may, I think that if you find yourself in a situation in which you are convinced that you should use torture to avert a greater harm, you should do so, and then confess to the torture and turn yourself in to the authorities. If your conscience obliges you to do something wrong, you should be prepared to take responsibility for it.

And of course you still have not answer to my question.

As I pointed out, and you ignored, there are several questions of mine that you have ducked. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I hear.

So now I will ask you again to explain your views on torture -- how utilitarianism and morality coincidence, etc. Or would you care to duck that question yet again?

Can you name one person who takes the position that “"it is extremely important that we succeed in Iraq, and the best strategy for achieving success is pulling out."

As I said above, I don't know of a single person who thinks that achieving success in Iraq is unimportant. What I didn't think I needed to say -- but I see that this omission confused you, and for that I apologize -- is that because everyone agrees that success is important, I think people take it as a given, and the only people who bother to state it are those who are trying to score cheap political points by attributing stupid ideas to their political opponents instead of treating their views with respect. There are many, many people who think that the best strategy for achieving success is withdrawing. John Murtha is one.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
So what is the standard for a civil case against the city? abuse of discretion?

This should make you happy.

RALEIGH, N.C. - The North Carolina bar filed ethics charges Thursday against the prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse case, accusing him of saying misleading or inflammatory things to the news media about the athletes under suspicion.

The punishment for ethics violations can range from admonishment to disbarment.

Among the four rules of professional conduct that District Attorney Mike Nifong was accused of violating was a prohibition against making comments "that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused."

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Do you think it is immoral to kill a baby that you know will grow up to be a mass murderer?


If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?


Is there a point to questions like this, or have you just run out of backyard wildlife to observe?

Maybe... um... because this is a discussion board?

Sour grapes anyone?

That has got to be one of the dumbest questions ever asked on this board? Why post to this board at all? Why discuss morality or politics? What purpose does it serve?

Any of those questions would be appropriate for the board, but in this particular case this question was central to what we were debating. Ty said that I had questionable values since I claimed torture was a moral imperative in some circumstances. So clearly he was implying that torture was immoral in all circumstances (otherwise how could my position be so definitely "valueless"?). So I asked him if he thought it was moral to torture the terrorist in the ticking time bomb scenario. Does that seem to be reasonable question after he questioned my "values"? If someone is going to take the position that torture is always wrong shouldn't they back it up? His entire position rested on the idea that torture is always wrong.

If he is going to accuse me of having a lack of values, then at least I should know what values we were talking about.

And if he doesn't answer my question, then why doesn't he say he is not going to answer my question. Why dodge it by saying that torture is the lesser of two evils. Or getting angry saying that I have some nerve asking a question he has already answered. Or getting defensive and angry when I claim he doesn't answer the questions I pose to him - when that is exactly what he has done.

And then why does he get angry when he thinks I have not answered questions he asked me? Or gets angry when he thinks I have not answered his questions sufficiently enough?

I realize you are bitter because I wiped up the board with you today, but your bitterness has pushed you into siding with the wrong horse in this particular exchange.

I showed him the courtesy of answering his questions; he could provide the same courtesy to me. He is a moderate after all. Isn’t he supposed to at least set some sort of example for the board?
.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
How do you know, in absolute terms?

How do you know the person you would torture in the "ticking bomb" hypothetical knows where the bomb is?

Note that I avoided the obvious pitfalls here, like "how do you know the person is a terrorist" or "how do you know that person will yield under torture?"

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
He is a moderate after all. Isn’t he supposed to at least set some sort of example for the board?
.

He is a Moderator. But yes, in that role he is supposed to set an example of responsible and thoughtful participation. As the inspiration for the progenitor of this Board and a co-Moderator (but first among equals, iykwim) of this Board I feel a moral duty to such participation and have attempted, over, lo these many years, to set an example for Ty............apparently I am a better lawyer than a mentor. This saddens me, but like the best of parents with wayward children, for no parental failure (eg: Jeb and Consuela Bush), I have to let Ty be free and set his own course in life. Of course, there is a part of me that wonders what would happen if he were to stop partaking in the boxed wine and drink some moderately upscale stuff, in bottles, with corks, from say the Willamette Valley, OR or Walla Walla WA......the path not taken I guess.