Originally posted by rwingett'Countries should get rid of their armies' is as stupid a statement as those claiming childishly in the other thread that 'love lasts forever'. What planet are you people living on?
Countries should get rid of their armies. The US founding fathers were correct in observing that standing armies are a grave threat to liberty. The degree to which the US is now in danger of becoming a police state bears them out.
Your policy of assassination will not prevent wars. It will just inflame worldwide hostility toward the US and run the risk ...[text shortened]... ore violence. A policy of violence never leads to less violence. It only leads to more violence.
A country under threat from another has two options lets say ..
- A war that might cost countless billions and an unknown number of lives probably in the hundreds of thousands, or
- An assassination which might cost $1M and probably result in around 20 deaths.
The decision to assassinate is a life saving decision, and not an overall policy of the country. Even it becomes a policy then it is a policy of less rather than more violence.
Originally posted by Rajk999Your nice and tidy arithmetic conveniently assumes that there will be no repercussions from your wanton assassinations. As googlefudge likes to say, could you please demonstrate some evidence for such a position? In the end, I think you'll find your numbers don't add up quite as nicely as you seem to think.
'Countries should get rid of their armies' is as stupid a statement as those claiming childishly in the other thread that 'love lasts forever'. What planet are you people living on?
A country under threat from another has two options lets say ..
- A war that might cost countless billions and an unknown number of lives probably in the hundreds of thousa ...[text shortened]... the country. Even it becomes a policy then it is a policy of less rather than more violence.
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettCan you demonstrate that the repercussions will be greater than if the other country is attacked by war?
Your nice and tidy arithmetic conveniently assumes that there will be no repercussions from your wanton assassinations. As googlefudge likes to say, could you please demonstrate some evidence for such a position? In the end, I think you'll find your numbers don't add up quite as nicely as you seem to think.
Are you liked in Iraq? Afghanistan?
I totally fail to see why the repercussions for assassinations would be so much greater than the repercussions from military war and take over. I realise that because of tradition, there would be repercussions from other nations not involved in the fight because its not seen as gentlemanly. But maybe its time we changed those traditions.
I thought you of all people would be against the old traditions of valuing the king and his nobles above the populace.
Originally posted by Rajk999Regardless of whether it is feasible to eliminate armies altogether, that goal should be a top priority for countries the world over. The US should be the one to take the high road on that position and return to its traditionally small peacetime army. The greatest obstacle to such a goal is not the threat from other nations, but the demand for profits by the permanently installed military-industrial complex.
'Countries should get rid of their armies' is as stupid a statement as those claiming childishly in the other thread that 'love lasts forever'. What planet are you people living on?
A country under threat from another has two options lets say ..
- A war that might cost countless billions and an unknown number of lives probably in the hundreds of thousa ...[text shortened]... the country. Even it becomes a policy then it is a policy of less rather than more violence.
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou seem to assume that we could assassinate whomever we please at a moments notice. For a rogue terrorist, perhaps we can. But for a head of state, I doubt it would be as simple as Cpt. Picard snapping his fingers and saying, "Make it so."
Can you demonstrate that the repercussions will be greater than if the other country is attacked by war?
Are you liked in Iraq? Afghanistan?
I totally fail to see why the repercussions for assassinations would be so much greater than the repercussions from military war and take over. I realise that because of tradition, there would be repercussions f ...[text shortened]... eople would be against the old traditions of valuing the king and his nobles above the populace.
Originally posted by rwingettEvidence : US V Saddam
Your nice and tidy arithmetic conveniently assumes that there will be no repercussions from your wanton assassinations. As googlefudge likes to say, could you please demonstrate some evidence for such a position? In the end, I think you'll find your numbers don't add up quite as nicely as you seem to think.
The war : Cost $760,000,000,000 US ; Lives lost Over 1,000,000 by some estimates
Possible Assassination Scenario - Who Knows ? ... certainly less than one thousandth of the above.
Repercussions - certainly less than the war.
Its a no-brainer.
Originally posted by Rajk999Hey, I've got an idea. How about we refrain from both? The cost: $0. Even a mathematician like yourself should be able to see the savings there.
Evidence : US V Saddam
The war : Cost $760,000,000,000 US ; Lives lost Over 1,000,000 by some estimates
Possible Assassination Scenario - Who Knows ? ... certainly less than one thousandth of the above.
Repercussions - certainly less than the war.
Its a no-brainer.
Originally posted by rwingettBut that is avoidance of the issue. The question is whether or not assassination as opposed to war is better, not whether assassination as opposed to nothing is better.
Hey, I've got an idea. How about we refrain from both? The cost: $0. Even a mathematician like yourself should be able to see the savings there.
Originally posted by Rajk999Israel tried that once and killed five of their own soldiers practicing.
Evidence : US V Saddam
The war : Cost $760,000,000,000 US ; Lives lost Over 1,000,000 by some estimates
Possible Assassination Scenario - Who Knows ? ... certainly less than one thousandth of the above.
Repercussions - certainly less than the war.
Its a no-brainer.
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2003/s1011588.htm
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by rwingettNo, you are making an assertion. you are declaring that if X then Y will follow.
I don't need to justify anything. Why don't you demonstrate to me why a policy of assassination wouldn't lead to it being expanded to dangerous proportions?
I am saying you don't just get to assert that, you have to back it up.
I am not making the claim, you are.
As usual you don't want to have to justify anything you say.
You just want to assert your opinions as truth and the ridicule anyone who has the temerity to ask for justification.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by rwingettYou are not making arguments you are making assertions.
Well, guess what? I have no interest in whether you find my arguments reasonable.
And your lack of interest in being reasonable makes you a lousy debater.
Due to you being UN-reasonable. You have no reason.