re: The Effect of War on Telecom[...] >6. As soon as they do that, hit them again. >Only this time hit them much harder. Square >in the nose. >7. Repeat steps 2-6 until the desired results >are obtained and the idiot realizes how stupid >of an argument he/she is making. [...]
If I were the peace "activist", there would appear to be about four possible responses to take to the above.
1. Walk away (muttering whatever under my breath) 2. Try and punch you back and then, if you run off, find your friends and relatives and punch them by way of discouraging you from punching me again. 3. Get together with my best friend and use a couple of iron bars to beat to a pulp some guy that I don't like and that I think you were talking to earlier. And if anyone gets between us, we just knock them out of the way. 4. Call the police and have you arrested for assault.
Option 1 would work well in the scenario of a march but not so well if you followed me home and kept punching me there (to make the obvious extension to your analogy).
Option 2 might initially discourage you from punching me again but if one of the people I punched were your mother or kid brother, you might forget that I was bigger than you and come back to punch me again harder. Plus, of course, your brothers/sisters/father would now be more than annoyed with me and a couple might decide that I deserved to get punched for punching your mother even though they thought you were stupid for starting the whole thing in the first place. Then I'd have to punch your brothers and sisters, unless they ran away, in which case I could pour brake fluid on their car, except oops that was their neighbour's car so now she's p*ssed off at me. And so on and so on.
Option 3 is of course the obvious course to take and is why the current Operation Iraqi Liberation will be such a stupendous success.
Option 4 would work in any society that I want to live in. But I suppose the police are ineffective because ... um ... we refuse to join them or to pay them.
Help me out here if you had a better solution for what the poor peace activist is to do except realise the futility of not seeing the world from your point of view (which gets her punched again anyway).
>There is no difference in an individual >attacking an unsuspecting victim or a group >of terrorists attacking a nation of people. It >is totally unacceptable and must be dealt with.
I agree. I would add "in the same way" to your statement.
re: The Effect of War on TelecomHow does this work? I seem to have been busted down a rank. Any explanation? =========== It seems to be calculated as an average based on the ratings your posts get. And the more you post, the more you tend to drift toward the "rank" (two red bars) you have right now.
re: The Effect of War on Telecom The US dropped the bomb and killed ~50,000 the first time. Since Japan didn't respond "quick enough" we dropped the second killing 80,000 more civilians. Not military targets. ------------------- The deliberations of the japanese government are in the historical record. There was never an intention on their part to respond. And 50,000 people to the japanese government meant very little. More died on Okinawa (for nothing).
As far as civilians vs. military. While I dont agree with it, terror-bombing of civilians and cities had become an accepted practice several years before as had fire-bombing cities. I dont consider it an acceptable practice, but I drawing a line at the end of the war and saying that it was more "wrong" starting in late 1945 and just in the case of two cities doesn't work for me.
I agree with your suggestion that governments will always play with the truth in order to engage in war and that the public reasons are not necessarly the true reasons. I dont necessarly agree with your examples.
For example, the US government was doing everything in its power to get into a war in 1941. The pearl harbor conspiracy isn't really necessary to make that case. As an example, in the case of Japan, the US demands started out reasonable (get out of indochina) but as the negotiations went on they got more and more unreasonable to a point where I dont believe the people dealing with japan wanted an agreement to be reached. In 1941, the american government had army pilots fighting in china against japan (the volunteer story was long-ago admitted to be false). The british and americans were shipping weapons to china.
re: The Effect of War on TelecomI served in Vietnam, and when we got home there were neither parades nor congratulations. People want to forget about us.
Did you come to any closure on why this happened? What are the best forms of support a society could give for its troops?
re: The Effect of War on TelecomIt seems to be calculated as an average based on the ratings your posts get. And the more you post, the more you tend to drift toward the "rank" (two red bars) you have right now.
>>>>>>>>>>
Thanks. Seems silly, though. Out of principle, I don't rate my own posts, which would obviously help....
re: The Effect of War on Telecom3. Get together with my best friend and use a couple of iron bars to beat to a pulp some guy that I don't like and that I think you were talking to earlier. And if anyone gets between us, we just knock them out of the way.
Option 3 is of course the obvious course to take and is why the current Operation Iraqi Liberation will be such a stupendous success.
Well, if we're going to beat the pulp out of a third party to save face, we might as well pick someone that is a known bully and controls a lot of wealth.
4. Call the police and have you arrested for assault.
Option 4 would work in any society that I want to live in. But I suppose the police are ineffective because ... um ... we refuse to join them or to pay them.
Unfortunately, it seem that there are no police to be called, but rather it's a neighborhood watch where individual self interests rule the day.
The ideologist may claim that selecting the target of attack properly, it will not only allow us to get rich and save face, but it will also help us to create the rules so the bloke who hit us originally will understand that if he doesn't figure out how to get his society to behave, his family will be going broke.
re: The Effect of War on TelecomGreat quote from the Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, who called reports of coalition forces on the outskirts of Baghdad "an illusion." "They're not even [within] 100 miles," he said. "They are not in any place. They hold no place in Iraq. This is an illusion. ... They are trying to sell to the others an illusion."
There's a giant iron illusion in the desert getting ready to bite you in the arse.
re: The Effect of War on TelecomHow does this work? I seem to have been busted down a rank. Any explanation? =================================================
Collateral Damage + Friendly fire + Threat of Veto from coalition + some accidents + Anti war protests
>6. As soon as they do that, hit them again.
>Only this time hit them much harder. Square
>in the nose.
>7. Repeat steps 2-6 until the desired results
>are obtained and the idiot realizes how stupid
>of an argument he/she is making.
[...]
If I were the peace "activist", there would appear to be about four possible responses to take to the above.
1. Walk away (muttering whatever under my breath)
2. Try and punch you back and then, if you run off, find your friends and relatives and punch them by way of discouraging you from punching me
again.
3. Get together with my best friend and use a couple of iron bars to beat to a pulp some guy that I don't like and that I think you were
talking to earlier. And if anyone gets between us, we just knock them out of the way.
4. Call the police and have you arrested for assault.
Option 1 would work well in the scenario of a march but not so well if you followed me home and kept punching me there (to make the obvious extension to your analogy).
Option 2 might initially discourage you from punching me again but if one of the people I punched were your mother or kid brother, you might forget that I was bigger than you and come back to punch me again harder. Plus, of course, your brothers/sisters/father would now be more
than annoyed with me and a couple might decide that I deserved to get punched for punching your mother even though they thought you were
stupid for starting the whole thing in the first place. Then I'd have to punch your brothers and sisters, unless they ran away, in which case
I could pour brake fluid on their car, except oops that was their neighbour's car so now she's p*ssed off at me. And so on and so on.
Option 3 is of course the obvious course to take and is why the current Operation Iraqi Liberation will be such a stupendous success.
Option 4 would work in any society that I want to live in. But I suppose the police are ineffective because ... um ... we refuse to join
them or to pay them.
Help me out here if you had a better solution for what the poor peace activist is to do except realise the futility of not seeing the world
from your point of view (which gets her punched again anyway).
>There is no difference in an individual
>attacking an unsuspecting victim or a group
>of terrorists attacking a nation of people. It
>is totally unacceptable and must be dealt with.
I agree. I would add "in the same way" to your statement.