NationStates Jolt Archive

The Deterrent Effect (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,149486,00.html)
I love unintended consequences.

heh ehe, now.

In a hostage or torture stituation where there is a hostile and perhaps unstable/unknowable person with control over your life and death, one of the most important things to remember is to not anger your captor/torturer.

Angering them will only escalte the situation, increase the danger you are in, and perhaps lead your assailant becoming increasingly abusive or deadly.

The trick is to placate them without giving away anything vital; thus the often cliche' concept of "Name, rank, serial number."

Perhaps by saying they will leave, but entrenching their position at the same time; they are following the old "art of war" trick of buying time with soothing words. Eventually the Lebonese will quiet down, international pressure will fade, and intervention will become unlikely; people cannot remain in the streets forever right? The Syrians are almost certainly banking on this possibility.

Note that Syrian forces are reported to have been entrenching their positions, and the Syrian president said that they would pull out but gave no timeline whatsoever for the deed.

If making an example is the reason for invading a sovereign country on false pretenses, killing more than a hundred thousand of its people, forcing the rest of them to deal with a new theocratic government, killing more than one thousand and five hundred of your troops, and spending billions upon billions of tax money, then I say that somebody has their means and ends screwed up a little.

The Syrians are almost certainly banking on this possibility.
Their bets are off. Unless, of course, someone like Kerry gets put into office in the next election, in which case the entire middle east will go back to business as normal.

Their bets are off. Unless, of course, someone like Kerry gets put into office in the next election, in which case the entire middle east will go back to business as normal.

Interesting; do you believe the current administration would/will use military force to kick Syria out?

Also, how much force do you believe would be required to force a withdrawl, and how long do you think this administration would wait before deciding such an option?

If making an example is the reason for invading a sovereign country on false pretenses, killing more than a hundred thousand of its people, forcing the rest of them to deal with a new theocratic government, killing more than one thousand and five hundred of your troops, and spending billions upon billions of tax money, then I say that somebody has their means and ends screwed up a little.
dirty disgusting FALSE liberal crybaby propaganda... you've been reading up on Goebbels again haven't you :rolleyes:

dirty disgusting FALSE liberal crybaby propaganda... you've been reading up on Goebbels again haven't you :rolleyes:

So what about it was false?

"If making an example is the reason for invading a sovereign country on false pretenses, killing more than a hundred thousand of its people, forcing the rest of them to deal with a new theocratic government, killing more than one thousand and five hundred of your troops, and spending billions upon billions of tax money, then I say that somebody has their means and ends screwed up a little."

A) Sovereign Country: Do you dispute the fact that Iraq was a sovereign nation?

B) False Pretenses: Do you dispute the fact that the initial reasons given in the preceding months before the war were not the reasons we stayed inside Iraq for?

C) Casualties Caused by Fighting: Do you dispute the numbers of fatalities cause by the war?

D) New Government: Do you dispute the fact that the Shi'ite party won the recent election in Iraq? (This one is the most unsure statement thus far! The party that won was Shi'ite but its only speculation that it will not prove to be secular.)

E) US Fatalities: Do you dispute the fact that 1,500 American troops have died while serving in Iraq?

F) Cost of War: Do you dispute the fact that Iraq has cost more than 2 billion dollars?

G) What else is there? You called it false, and I agree that the theocratic government crack was certainly pre-emptive; but overall there's not much to dispute. What is so "FALSE" that you had to all caps it, and tell them they were a Nazi?

I dispute the # of people killed by US troop action.

Iraq may have been a sovereign nation it was also a rogue nation looking to gain the capacity to build WMD (so OK there weren't stockpiles of 'em but we didn't know that before, we thought there were, because Saddam's people'd been bragging about it).

What was FALSE about his statement is that he more or less suggested it was an aggressive invasion against a peaceful country with a saint as a leader. We gave 'em a chance to deal with it themselves, they wouldn't listen.

What was FALSE about his statement is that he more or less suggested it was an aggressive invasion against a peaceful country with a saint as a leader. We gave 'em a chance to deal with it themselves, they wouldn't listen.

Hold the phone. "It more or less suggested" ? You mean you read into the statement, plucked out the meaning that most angered you, then said the entire statement was FALSE becase of an undeclared, not-written, actively sought out bias?

It never said anything about an aggressive invasion against a peaceful country with a saint as a leader; YOU said that. Not anyone else. Hell, why DID you say it just now? I read that paragraph 10 times, then cut a pasted it so I could dissect it. It never said anything remotely even slightly a smidgen past a hair close to that!

That's not false, in fact, it wasn't anything at all. You MADE it something. You made it into the problem. Then you told them they were a NAZI because of YOUR thoughts on the subject; not theirs.

Do you see where I'm going with this? You owe them an apology. You called someone a Nazi because you dispute the number of people they believe killed in the Iraq war.

I dispute the # of people killed by US troop action.

Iraq may have been a sovereign nation it was also a rogue nation looking to gain the capacity to build WMD (so OK there weren't stockpiles of 'em but we didn't know that before, we thought there were, because Saddam's people'd been bragging about it).

What was FALSE about his statement is that he more or less suggested it was an aggressive invasion against a peaceful country with a saint as a leader. We gave 'em a chance to deal with it themselves, they wouldn't listen.

You're confusing two issues here. We as the people didn't know whether Saddam had WMD's - like you said because Saddam was almost bragging about it. Under those circumstances war might have been justified. However the American and British governments did know that Saddam didn't have WMD's but lied to their people about it which makes the war a lot less defensible.

The Deterrent Effect (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,149486,00.html)
I love unintended consequences.
Does Fox News suggest that all Bush has to do is say "now" and everyone will jump?

It is also a bit arrogant to suggest:

If Bush keeps working on this he won't even have to say "now" — he'll just wiggle his eyebrows and despots will tremble.

Maybe he could "wiggle his eyebrows" and all the insurgents in Iraq will throw down their arms "now". For some reason I don't see that happening.

This article tries to give Bush far too much credit for a power that he does not have. Issuing threats is one thing, being a diplomatic statesman is another.

Hold the phone. "It more or less suggested" ? You mean you read into the statement, plucked out the meaning that most angered you, then said the entire statement was FALSE becase of an undeclared, not-written, actively sought out bias?

It never said anything about an aggressive invasion against a peaceful country with a saint as a leader; YOU said that. Not anyone else. Hell, why DID you say it just now? I read that paragraph 10 times, then cut a pasted it so I could dissect it. It never said anything remotely even slightly a smidgen past a hair close to that!

That's not false, in fact, it wasn't anything at all. You MADE it something. You made it into the problem. Then you told them they were a NAZI because of YOUR thoughts on the subject; not theirs.

Do you see where I'm going with this? You owe them an apology. You called someone a Nazi because you dispute the number of people they believe killed in the Iraq war.
Excellent job of pinning the tail on the donkey! :cool:

Bush has a foreign policy?

This article tries to give Bush far too much credit for a power that he does not have. Issuing threats is one thing, being a diplomatic statesman is another.

Well I think it was Fox News that said Kerry was responible for drops in the stockmarket, because some bad stockmarket days happen round the same times some pre-election polls showed Kerry in the lead. So it not just Bush Fox News think has magic powers...

Foxnews, in it's typical propaganda fashion, declares Bush a demi-god who can command the leaders of the world by simply saying a word. Frankly, Foxnews has no credibility whatsoever, considering that they are so heavily biased towards the pro-Bush side. If Bush had even remotely the influence to make dictators or other politicians jump to his every whim, then he should be able to easily befriend the Iraqi insurgents and end all other world problems with the blink of an eye - or the wiggle of his eye brows, as Foxnews suggests he would be able soon, if he keeps his oh-so-great foreign policy up. In my opinion, Bush is the greatest disaster the world has seen from the US, since the 2 nukes on Japan. He's a disgrace for the US and his foreign policy is a joke.

Well I think it was Fox News that said Kerry was responible for drops in the stockmarket, because some bad stockmarket days happen round the same times some pre-election polls showed Kerry in the lead. So it not just Bush Fox News think has magic powers...
Well I cannot get Fox news here but I have heard a lot of negative comments about Fox on these discussion boards. Since I don't know that much about Fox, I do not feel qualified in making an informed opinion on Fox News as a whole.

Having said that, I do believe that the article that was linked in the first post, is totally void of reality.

Well I cannot get Fox news here but I have heard a lot of negative comments about Fox on these discussion boards. Since I don't know that much about Fox, I do not feel qualified in making an informed opinion on Fox News as a whole.

Having said that, I do believe that the article that was linked in the first post, is totally void of reality.

Well I havn't wath the channel in person either because swedish, but have heard about through friends and from other sources. So maybee not the best person to think the channel either, but from that I heard it is very right wing like it's owners. That I think it's a problem in most capatilistic countries including mine, that it's rich people that is useally right wing, that run the medies. But because how capatilistic and rightwing USA is the problem with that gets bigger there.

If I should be serious about the article I agree that it is ludicruios, that the good thing that happens in the middle east right know is just because of the Iraq war and because of Bush, the same opinion other on this forum has been saying. Not considering other factores like the shift in palestinien leadership with the death of Yasssir Arafat, the messed up assasination with the bomb in Libanon (if that was the Syrians that did it). Also they not consider other facts that almost two years after the war Iraqies and Americans are still dying in Iraq, is that also Bush sucess? Also that will the terrorist do if they loose or win in Iraq? I think atleast the foreign ones will decide to spill over to other hotspots.