Caltrops - Operation: Hammer Time





	[quote name="Lizard_King"][quote name="Bill Dungsroman"] Fucking obviously. You're trying to tell me that the only "real-world" solution to international problems are US-run hit squads. I'm trying to tell you that not only is that a shitty idea, since that makes whoever is with us (at any point in time) with us, but whoever's agin us is, well, On The List, (until 10 years from now maybe, when a whole new batch of folks are On The List, and some aren't, and some who are now dead thanks to The List could have been taken off, and the fallout from scouring the world of Evil (read: people we don't like) has destroyed our international relations with a substantial (and progressively growing) subpopulation of the world. But hell, they're all on The List, so fuck 'em. For now, at least, maybe later, unless we kill them first), but also it's impossible. Civilian casualties and property are always collateral damage. We can't/won't/don't do that, surgically excise the Bad Ones, anyway, so we get wars. I'm proving you wrong, on a basic common sense level, and you're telling me "Yes, wars, yes, that's what I mean." How the fuck does my rebuttal to your original point prove your point? I'm getting at, you're an idiot.[/quote] All I was saying was that the solution to this problem, as with many other problems of a similiar breed, is most efficiently found in killing the people spearheading the opposition. You persist in trying to blow that into my solution to EVERY problem, which I suppose is par for the course, since the only way your argument remotely makes sense is if it is taken as a mildy idiotic platitude. [quote][quote name="Lizard_King"]No, I'm not. You're just missing the point of all those large scale wars. The most effective way to end them was for one side to kill or neutralize key individuals on the other side.[/quote] Using what, a fucking satellite laser beam? Captain America? Do you get my point? YOUR REAL-WORLD SOLUTION CANNOT OR WILL NOT HAPPEN IN THE REAL WORLD, THUS IT IS BY DEFINITION NOT A "REAL WORLD" SOLUTION. And don't tell me I'm missing the point of every large scale war. If you're telling me "kill the other guys" was the point of every war, then the only point you got is on top of your fucking head.[/quote] 1. No, soldiers. Bombs. Spears. Depends on the time and place, doesn't it, you comic-book-fag...YOUR USE OF FANTASTICAL HYPERBOLE DOES NOT MAKE MY POINTS UNREALISTIC, something people like you forget often. 2. I didn't say that was the POINT of every war, but by and large the simplest way to END most wars, especially ones like Iraq where it is not a race war or anything of the sort and thus a fairly small number of individuals at its core. [quote][quote name="Lizard_King"]Plenty of civilians died? Of course, given strategy and technology of whatever war, but that becomes parenthetical in the current discussion over Iraq given the relatively minor civilian casualties.[/quote] You're the one who went all History Channel on me, Bunky. Don't back out because you don't like the way the breeze is drifting.[/quote] What the fuck are you talking about? It's like these mystery "rebuttals" you keep screaming about. [quote][quote name="Lizard_King"]Killing (relatively) few Iraqis now proportionately saves a lot of lives due to the absence of the regime, so I don't know how much of an objective standard humaneness is.[/quote] Can I borrow your crystal ball for the weekend?[/quote] So, you're saying that the total dead from the war will eventually match those that Saddam would have killed, barring him waking up one day and deciding to do the exact opposite of what he has been doing for the last two decades? While theoretically possible, I find it highly implausible that even you consider that an argument. In addition, I don't see how you equate the deaths orchestrated by Saddam against his population with ours; the only ones I find equivalent are the noncombatants killed, and surely even you can see a difference in numbers there. [quote] Have you ever said something, and the person you're talking to goes real silent and looks at you like you're a complete idiot? I'm doing that right now, to my monitor. Do you want to talk about Iraq, or not? Could you ring a little bell or something that lets me know when broad generalizations are allowed?[/quote] You said killing was never humane. That is at the very least a matter of opinion, especially in the context of the situation we are discussing, and especially if you had ever, I don't know, thought about what has happened in the past rather than projecting what makes you feel bad as some sort of categorical imperative. You consider the continuation of Saddam's regime a "humane" alternative to what we are doing; I think you are a fucking lunatic for seeing things that way, but I'll be damned if I have the time to bother to convince someone when we can't even agree on basic premises. [quote] What does that have to do with celebrating death? You know, my original argument?[/quote] I don't recall being the one that opened this can of worms ALL BY MYSELF. If indeed that is all that was at stake, then I suggest we just accept that you NEVER EVER EVER feel glad that ANYONE IS DEAD, and I am occasionally glad that some people are dead. [quote][quote name="Lizard_King"]What I said was "What I see is a subset of Middle Easterners who are simply problems; you start by killing off the worst of them, and the others will either fall into line or get their turn."[/quote] Your statement needs clarification: "What I (a middle-class twentysomething WASP-bred American) see is a subset of Middle Easterners who are simply problems (to someone, so I'm told); you (form American hit squads and) start (alienating the US from the world at large) by killing off the worst of them (according to our mercurial agenda and opinion), and the others (and there <I>will</I> be others, are you listening, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, China, and the almost certain <I>et cetera</I>?) will either fall into line (because killing extremists and bombing their countries, thereby killing the nonextremists unluckily living near them, always works!) or get their turn (to retaliate)."[/quote] Neither WASP nor WASP bred. Just as a start. I suppose somehow your opinions, equally "(so I'm told)" by your jackass definition are more valid. Because inaction NEVER hurts anyone. It must be great to see passivity as your central creed, or at least relaxing. [quote][quote name="Lizard_King"]In Iraq, only a cretin would infer that I meant the entire Arab race in the area.[/quote] I'm not currently in Iraq, am I still a cretin?[/quote] OMFG THAT WAS SO FUNNY I AM SO BURNED. [quote]Regardless, who gives a fuck what you (as in you, but more importantly, you-as-our-government) "meant." What you <I>did</I> was compose a list of "Arabs" (shh, nobody say nothing) and start whacking them.[/quote] Agreed. That's what I said. [quote]Who/what decides who makes the list?[/quote] Is that a rhetorical question? I mean, I suppose even you know the literal answer to that question. I suspect you meant it in a throq-your-hands-in-the-air-while-screaming WHOMADEYOUGODTOBEABLETODECIDETHATANYONESHOULDEVEREVEREVERDIE? kind of way. Get fucking real...Am I supposed to be blown away by this touchy feely horseshit? People decide these things all the time; a lot of the time when America has chosen to deliberately kill x group of people, we have been backing the wrong horse. I don't see how killing Baathists and their allies is anything but an objective improvement. I completely understand that you would rather they be alive, hugging bunnies and paving Shiites into roads again, because OMFG there might be CONSEQUENCES, and ONLY YOU and those that agree with you IN THE WHOLE WORLD ARE AWARE OF THIS (note: some of those who disagree with you might consider both the scale (remember the wrath of the Arab street for invading Iraq in the first place? Riiiight) and the degree are wholly acceptable to achieve long term stability in the region.) [quote]Who doesn't? Is there an algorithm? And, here's the punchline, <I>are they less likely to end up on that list if they deal in vital commerce with us</I>? [/quote] Yes, less likely. Not categorically exempt, but less likely. Does that little bit of perfectly rational reality scare you too much? I think you're living on the wrong planet to argue politics if that sort of decision makes you all hot and bothered. [quote]Are you getting the drift here, Chauncey? Are you feeling the moral loggerheads created by one country (or a concerted group of countries) figuring out themselves who the Bad Guys are, especially when your one-again, off-again friend History has proven that the US has put into power, funded, worked with, and supported those who would become latter-day Bad Guys because well, we just went and did it for our own reasons? [/quote] Realpolitik. Get used to it. It's been around forever. And I think you and SB have pretty much shortcircuited moral issues as a valid argument for your views, given that you have no belief in morality of any sort. [quote]How about if China started up a list, and we came in at #1 with a bullet?[/quote] They did, long ago, and we are. The difference is they don't feel able to do anything about it. In the future, they either will feel able to and act accordingly or will have liberalized enough for it to be a non issue. I forget where this was an argument against me. [quote]Oh, there's a sound international policy for you. DEAR COUNTRY: WE HATE U AND U WILL SOON DIE signed THE OTHER COUNTRY.[/quote] Hyperbole is no excuse for an obviously false analogy. [quote][quote name="Lizard_King"]In Iraq, that pretty obviously means the remaining Baathists and their fedayeen etc allies, who must be killed, captured, or brought into line depending on what is most efficient.[/quote] Nuking the whole place would be efficient as hell. Shut up. [/quote] No, it wouldn't. Since the goal isn't "eliminate all of Iraq", you idiot. [quote]The oil argument is invalid because you added some I's?[/quote] Yes. It is invalid the way you and other antiwar folks use it, as anyone with a basic understanding of the oil trade could explain to you. Claiming it is GWBush's personal motive in his quest for oil that drove the invasion of Iraq is stupid.... [quote]You're telling me the middle east (Iraq specifically) hasn't gotten to do the things it's done because a lot of dinosaurs died there millions of years ago? So, Germany and France opposed the war because the French still don't like us and Germany is still bitter over WW2? Shut the fuck up, you brandish your ignorance like a fatty does his Bacon Ultimate Cheeseburger.[/quote] ...and stating obvious geopolitical truths about why the region is important has nothing to do with your points. Dumbass. [quote] AND THUSLY I AM FLAYED OPEN FOR ALL TO SEE! Also, I no doubt and likely consider you a babbling idiot who says whatever the fuck is on his mind at whomever the fuck he's talking to, in a desperate effort to sound right. In summary: Who the fuck ever: "w00t! People are dead!" BDR/chimp, others: "Yeah, great. Dead people. Oo-rah." LK: "OH SO YOU'RE IMPLYING THE WAR WASN'T NECESSARY AND RIGHT?" BDR: "Nigger what? Naw dude, feeling triumphant and vindicated over it is just gay." LK: "IF I HAD MY HIT LISTS AND DEATH SQUADS GOING I'D SHOW YOU GAY, HIPPIE! [/quote] Sure. That's all that was at stake. That's why you spouted all that bullshit above. Whatever. [quote] And some of us lament the fact that it had to happen at all, because it sucks.[/quote] Life is hard....you are so deep, man. Wow. That must be...heavy. Next you're going to claim that it is because Bush exists that we don't have perfect happy crappy solutions for every problem. For some political administrations, denial is not considered effective policy. Tough shit for you.[/quote]