"Obama has now fired more cruise missiles than all other Nobel Peace Prize winners combined."

[LogGrad98]

I would just like to point out, WMDs aside, my whole main point was how completely different what Bush the 2nd did with Iraq is compared to what Obama is doing with Libya. I was arguing that Republicans and faux-Moderate Republicans are drawing imaginary parallels. There are differences on so many levels. But now this conversation has become so deluded and derailed with WMDs and Dictatorships that I'm not even sure what I am arguing about anymore. I feel baited.

But I do stand by saying that its just ridiculous to claim the top-5 dictatorships have all happened in contemporary history. That is just narrow-sighted.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, in all regards. If you can't see the parallels to the war in Iraq then I think you haven't looked into the details behind both wars enough. I am not even republican, but I can see the parallels, and the back-pedaling by the democrats.

As to the bold, you need to go back and see where the argument orriginated. It was a question of Ghadaffi compared to Saddam in terms of human rights, also in comparing America's involvement in both arenas. Saddam is far beyond Ghadaffi in that area as far as atrocities against his own people, and others, are concerned. The number of deaths caused by Saddam place him in the top 5 dictators in terms of killing his own people (as well as deaths brought about due to wars he caused). Even the low estimates put him in the top 10.

Now, if you really want to compare contemporary dictators to historical, then you need to do the research, part of which I provided for you. For example Chairman Mao, by most accounts killed 50-60 million people, mostly Chinese. But the population of China barely crossed the 100 million mark in the 1300's to 1400's. So before that no one individual in China could have come close to equaling that number, and indeed did not. This is true for most dictatorships and tyrants before the 1500's or so, when world population really started to spike. The facts are out there if you choose to look for them.

Of course, if you choose to ignore the data, or to not seek out data that you can accept, that is your choice as well.

But until you are informed you are in no place to call someone out like that.

 

[Sneakers]

Ok well one thing you have to understand is I was 3 bloody years old during the first Gulf War. I'm not sure how old you are, but my perspective is the one I prefer and the only one I got. And here's how I would break it all down:

Bush and Iraq: 9/11 happens, Bush feels need to respond. Somehow uses 9/11 to get the general public to go along with the idea that Iraq was tied in with the terrorists, with claims of WMD (which were not found once the invasion was completed) and claiming an immediate threat to the US. He ends up getting himself into a quagmire, costing millions (billions?) of dollars and royally screwing the US financially and causing a great deal of damage to our global respectability. And all for what??

At the same time, realizing that invading Iraq is going to do absolutely nothing about the terrorism issues Bush decides to subsequently invade Afghanistan at the same time, setting up quagmire #2 (though I am of the belief that engaging in Afghanistan was/is necessary).

Obama and Libya:

Mubarak and the whole Egypt revolt happens - the US toes a fine line as Mubarak had held some US-helpful policies, but in the end knows which side the US had to support, and urges Mubarak to step down. Things are peaceful. This of course causes mass revolts and riots all throughout the same area, causing several other dictators to relinquish.

The only one (or at least the most publicized) who refuses to accept the wave of change and step down is Ghadafi, who instead adopts a "i'm taking you down with me" stance and brutally murders protestors, not once, but continuously for weeks. He announces not only will he not go quietly but he's prepared to rain blood upon anyone who is dissenting. The blood-shed is so apparent, egregious and so non-stop that the world is literally forced to take action. Obama, along with other nations, do the sensible thing and do what they can to stop Ghadafi from murdering enough people for it to reach the astronomical levels of the other dictators from the past. This is why it was an intervention.

 

[Agoxlea]

Ok well one thing you have to understand is I was 3 bloody years old during the first Gulf War. I'm not sure how old you are, but my perspective is the one I prefer and the only one I got. And here's how I would break it all down:

Bush and Iraq: 9/11 happens, Bush feels need to respond. Somehow uses 9/11 to get the general public to go along with the idea that Iraq was tied in with the terrorists, with claims of WMD (which were not found once the invasion was completed) and claiming an immediate threat to the US. He ends up getting himself into a quagmire, costing millions (billions?) of dollars and royally screwing the US financially and causing a great deal of damage to our global respectability. And all for what??

At the same time, realizing that invading Iraq is going to do absolutely nothing about the terrorism issues Bush decides to subsequently invade Afghanistan at the same time, setting up quagmire #2 (though I am of the belief that engaging in Afghanistan was/is necessary).

Obama and Libya:

Mubarak and the whole Egypt revolt happens - the US toes a fine line as Mubarak had held some US-helpful policies, but in the end knows which side the US had to support, and urges Mubarak to step down. Things are peaceful. This of course causes mass revolts and riots all throughout the same area, causing several other dictators to relinquish.

The only one (or at least the most publicized) who refuses to accept the wave of change and step down is Ghadafi, who instead adopts a "i'm taking you down with me" stance and brutally murders protestors, not once, but continuously for weeks. He announces not only will he not go quietly but he's prepared to rain blood upon anyone who is dissenting. The blood-shed is so apparent, egregious and so non-stop that the world is literally forced to take action. Obama, along with other nations, do the sensible thing and do what they can to stop Ghadafi from murdering enough people for it to reach the astronomical levels of the other dictators from the past. This is why it was an intervention.

This.

I'm about the same age as you and this is how things appear to me as well. Except in Bahrain, Yemen, etc. there has been violence as well although I don't think it is a valid criticism (which some have made) to say we shouldn't have intervened in Libya, because it isn't consistent. This could be a valid argument to intervene in those other countries as well, but I don't think this is a good idea and I'm sure you all agree. Another difference between the two is we called for support from other nations to invade (not intervene) Iraq which fell on deaf ears. We ended up invading anyway, despite criticism from the global community. With Libya we didn't intervene which happened to be criticized by conservatives. Eventually after weeks of being called on by our allies to step in, we supported others' calls for help in Libya. Once we decided to support the global community conservatives changed there mind and began to criticize the intervention.

For example, Newt Gingrich:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiXPLmbrefI

 

[franklin]

Do you think the five worst dictators,in terms of their willingness to kill, have been alive in the past 100 years, or just those that had access to the most efficient killing technology?

I haven't been part of that discussion.

BTW, you didn't answer my question. When you aree with the consensus opinion in your scientific field, is that because of political pressure?

I ignored it, which is what it deserved. Why are you back to playing Big Fundy games anyway? I thought you had turned a corner and was enjoying your additions.

Maybe you should try getting your science from sites interested in science, instead of denial.

There is also debate over whether the earth is flat.

Did you really write this? This is when you become more than irrelevant.

 

[One Brow]

I haven't been part of that discussion.

So why did you decide to join in?

I ignored it, which is what it deserved.

I agree the concept is pretty ridiculous. It's basically an attempt by deniers to deny the evidence is really there.

I thought you had turned a corner and was enjoying your additions.

I'm sorry to disappoint you.

There are certainly times to take carefully nuanced views, but also times to call a spade a spade. I thought saying that so many of your fellow scientists were being swayed by political pressure, as opposed to evidence, was an insult to your profession, so I thought the latter was appropriate.

Did you really write this? This is when you become more than irrelevant.

I felt that it clearly indicated the existence of debate was not, in and of itself, a reason to say the evidence of global warming is indecisive. Debate can exist for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with the evidence.

 

[franklin]

So why did you decide to join in?

Why did you decide to ask this question? I understand, as the person who has continually influenced and altered your opinions, you highly desire that I enter the discussion and set you straight, but I'm just not up to it right now. I'm sorry I'm not up to teaching you again today, so please stick with Log's answers on Pol Pot, Hussein, Mao, etc. I'll vouch for them, k.

I'm sorry to disappoint you.

As you should be. You made great strides and were really starting to add relevant ideas. There's really no need to go back to what you were before.

There are certainly times to take carefully nuanced views, but also times to call a spade a spade. I thought saying that so many of your fellow scientists were being swayed by political pressure, as opposed to evidence, was an insult to your profession, so I thought the latter was appropriate.

Man up next time and call a spade a spade then. Pussyfooting around with insinuating questions detracts from your message. Besides, it makes you appear
insecure and unsure.

I felt that it clearly indicated the existence of debate was not, in and of itself, a reason to say the evidence of global warming is indecisive. Debate can exist for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with the evidence.

Ahh, got it. You'd do well to choose your metaphors and examples a little more carefully. Repeatedly going to the extreme only hurts you as you look increasingly fanatical with every heaping you add.

 

[One Brow]

Why did you decide to ask this question?

I was trying to reconcile your statement that you were not involved in a discussion with your decision to make a comment on a point in that discussion, becasue I have a curiousity about how other people think.

I understand, as the person who has continually influenced and altered your opinions, you highly desire that I enter the discussion and set you straight,

Funny, that doesn't sound like you.

but I'm just not up to it right now. I'm sorry I'm not up to teaching you again today, so please stick with Log's answers on Pol Pot, Hussein, Mao, etc. I'll vouch for them, k.

Because, the degree to which despots are judged is purely a numbers game, with no accounting for time, technology, or population density?

As you should be. You made great strides and were really starting to add relevant ideas.

As were you, for a while. You also have reverted back to older, worse habits, even more so than I.

Man up next time and call a spade a spade then. Pussyfooting around with insinuating questions detracts from your message. Besides, it makes you appear insecure and unsure.

We all have our own methods. If you find taking a more Socratic approach to indicate insecureness and unsureness, I can live with that. Frankly, that you so casually dismissed as absurd the question of whether political pressure would influence scientific opinion says ten times more about how realistic the possibility is than ten flat assertions on my part. So, I think my goal was accomplishe quite well in that, with your kind assist.

Ahh, got it. You'd do well to choose your metaphors and examples a little more carefully. Repeatedly going to the extreme only hurts you as you look increasingly fanatical with every heaping you add.

The two positions (flat earth, global warming is non-anthropogenic) are equally unscientific. If there was money to be made from people thinking the earth was flat, I guarantee you they would find people to testify before Congress that "round eath theory" was being debated in scientific circles and was by no means settled.

 

[Agoxlea]

The two positions (flat earth, global warming is non-anthropogenic) are equally unscientific. If there was money to be made from people thinking the earth was flat, I guarantee you they would find people to testify before Congress that "round eath theory" was being debated in scientific circles and was by no means settled.

This

 

[franklin]

I was trying to reconcile your statement that you were not involved in a discussion with your decision to make a comment on a point in that discussion, becasue I have a curiousity about how other people think.

You must be talking about my irrational fear of asteroids destroying the earth. You caught me. I was claiming the Asteroid King of the Galaxy is the worst dictator of all time.

You mean any comment on the greater discussion which includes tangential discussions galore is also a comment on those?

Because, the degree to which despots are judged is purely a numbers game, with no accounting for time, technology, or population density?

?Dnatsrednu ton uoy did goL ot kcits dna noissucsid siht htiw od ot gnihtyna tnaw t'nod I fo trap tahW.

As were you, for a while. You also have reverted back to older, worse habits, even more so than I.

Based on your god-complex?

Pseudo-syllogism combined with inferential questioning and deflection barraging is the sleight up your sleeve, not mine.

Frankly, that you so casually dismissed as absurd the question of whether political pressure would influence scientific opinion says ten times more about how realistic the possibility is than ten flat assertions on my part. So, I think my goal was accomplishe quite well in that, with your kind assist.

You must be proud of your continual assumptions. A highly desirable character trait, for sure.

The two positions (flat earth, global warming is non-anthropogenic) are equally unscientific. If there was money to be made from people thinking the earth was flat, I guarantee you they would find people to testify before Congress that "round eath theory" was being debated in scientific circles and was by no means settled.

Yet the loudest voices are those who will make the most off of GW legislation. Everyone knows Al Gore's story. I'd be pushing for it to if I were an oil corporation paying bucketloads for CO2 for EOR. Instead, you want to pay them to take it. I can see which corner you are in, and it's not the people's. You probably own stock in these coal gasification companies too. Why do you hate the middle class, eh Big Fundy?

 

[Sneakers]

Lol, this is just such a ridiculous exercise in "who can come up with the next best clever quip!". No one is listening or attempting to change their mind at all.

 

[Mission Accomplished]

1) Who exactly was forced into regime change besides Iraq? "Middle East" is a pretty broad statement. Iraq violated UN-ratified restrictions. Iraq killed far more of their own citizenry than Lybia has. Saddam was among the top 5 worst dictator the world has ever seen. Can you argue that Iraq did not need regime change? That Saddam killing millions of his own people testing WMD's was ok? If all that is not enough reason to invade Iraq, then what exactly did Lybia do to warrant this intervention?

2) Why did France lead the call for intervention in Lybia? What did Lybia do to France? The only plausible answer was the effect it would have on France for Lybia to turn off their oil, which Ghadafi threatened to do as part of his attempts to restrict uprisings in his own country. Lybia provides a substantial amount of oil to France and other european countries. If it isn't about oil, then what is it about?

3) Pure speculation. Also do you really think Obama gets no kickbacks or lobby money at all funded by corporations? Are you really that naive to ascribe veritable sainthood to a politician?

Apparently the Obama way is to cloud the issue, deflect blame/accountability, not involve congress before committing US resources, and use shaky evidence if any at all.

As a final point, please list the "conservatives" who got rich, and exactly what they benefited from invading Iraq. How much money did they make? Can you prove that not a single liberal benefited in the same way? Also can you successfully argue that no one in any previous military conflict in the history of American benefited financially?

All of these blanket statements are ways of glossing over the facts and details so you don't have to face the possibility that your opinion of the infallibility of the democratic party may be wrong.

Don't worry, you are not alone. Plenty of other democrats think the same way, as do plenty of republicans. That is actually why I do not always get involved in these debates here. Hard to discuss issues with someone who has fully been indoctrinated by the left or the right and cannot accept that maybe they don't have all the answers.

You shouldn't try so hard to read into and pick and chose what you are worried about. As for blanket statement how do you personally feel about Muslims? Or how about Obama? Or our National Health Care Bill?

 

[One Brow]

You mean any comment on the greater discussion which includes tangential discussions galore is also a comment on those?

Nope.

?Dnatsrednu ton uoy did goL ot kcits dna noissucsid siht htiw od ot gnihtyna tnaw t'nod I fo trap tahW.

When you vouch for an answer, and suggest it aqs being accurate, you taking part in the noissucsid.

Based on your god-complex?

Please go on about my god-complex. That should be interesting.

Pseudo-syllogism combined with inferential questioning and deflection barraging is the sleight up your sleeve, not mine.

Yes, you have completely different cards up your sleeve. However, your diamonds are not superior to my equally-ranked hearts when you have decided spades are trumps.

You must be proud of your continual assumptions. A highly desirable character trait, for sure.

Yes, the confusion of the implication of your example with an assumption on my part, very good.

Yet the loudest voices are those who will make the most off of GW legislation.

The people who are right often make money for being right.

I can see which corner you are in, and it's not the people's.

It's the people's grandkids.

You probably own stock in these coal gasification companies too.

I own no stock at all, actually.

Why do you hate the middle class, eh Big Fundy?

Is that brand of empty calories Cheetos or Fritos?