Pacifism and Memorial Day

[mgoforth]

I hope you are not posting this OPINION as FACT. You and Rosie O’Donnell have been drinking the same Kool-Aid. If you believe that 9/11 was an inside job, please give us facts to back this up. You may not consider terrorism to be an immanent thread, but many of us do.

It’s an opinion. I thought that was clear, but apologize if it wasn’t. I’m sorry if it offended you…but lumping me in with Rosie is pretty harsh.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

It still strikes me as an odd way for that building to fall on its own. If 25% of the lower structure was scooped out by the debris damage (which I don’t dispute), then the tower should have fallen to that side. To my eye it crumples neatly on its own footprint exactly the same as a controlled demo. I just haven’t seen a lot of buildings collapse like that from other causes.

It strikes you as odd because you are confusing the damage done to that area with the collapse, the two are distinctly separate occurrences–the obvious distinction between the two is that the building does not collapse immediately after impact. What caused WTC 7 to collapse was the broken truss due to the fire. It would crumple inwards because the truss that broke is located towards the center.

Well, physically impossible using high explosive charges.

Thermite charges? I know, I know…it’s been “debunked” (not very well). But they would be much quieter.

Much quieter, but much more bright. The thermite charges would have ignited visible, even through the smoke, fires that were more intense than the fires causing the burning. Add to that the fact that thermite charges are huge. You would need a charge about the size of a small desk to do the damage done. And you cannot hide that inside a building with 1000+ workers there daily. Thermite, to me, contains bigger holes than accepting that terrorists took down the building with 2 airplanes.

Yep, I’d have to say I was wrong on that one. Good find.

Thank you.

I’m sorry, though…it doesn’t change my view that there’s a lot of holes in the official story.

As I said above, there are more holes when considering the conspiracy theories that America was in on it, or did it, or what-have-you. Far more holes.

And I still see no evidence that we’re fighting for anything but oil. That seems very simple to me. Read the Hirsch Report and tell me the US government doesn’t know full well the consequences of running out of cheap oil. We’ve found a convenient excuse in terrorism to get our foot further in the door in the middle east. My prediction is that we never leave voluntarily.

Interesting strawman argument here. From this, it seems like you are arguing that we went to war with Iraq due to 9/11 and it was all about oil. I am not sure that you are aware of your confusion, but you should know your (recent) history:

• We went to war on Terror in 2001 because of 9/11
• We want to war with Iraq in 2003 because Saddam was a jerk and was not letting the weapons inspectors do their jobs of inspecting (something he had not permitted for about half a decade)

Two whole years separated the two wars we are still engaged in. I have always felt that Bush Jr went to war with Iraq to make up for (a) Saddam’s failed attempt on Bush Sr’s life and (b) Clinton ignoring the treaty (i.e., not inspecting the weapons) resulting from the Gulf War.
I suppose you think that the Middle East is our #1 supplier of oil. I suppose it would surprise you to find out that the collective Middle East supplies less than 20% of our foreign oil supply. The majority, roughly 50%, comes from our own hemisphere: Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, etc. Another near-20% comes from Africa. So why would the war in Iraq be about oil? They are our #7 supplier. Would it not make more sense to, say, take over Canada? Or Mexico? Or heck, even drill in ANWR?

Here’s a youtube video back at ya: youtube.com/watch?v=pMgOTQ7D_lk&t=49m52s

Not going to waste an hour+ watching a video on youtube; if it cannot be summed up in under 5 minutes, it is not worth the time.

 

[mgoforth]

Interesting strawman argument here. From this, it seems like you are arguing that we went to war with Iraq due to 9/11 and it was all about oil. I am not sure that you are aware of your confusion, but you should know your (recent) history:

• We went to war on Terror in 2001 because of 9/11
• We want to war with Iraq in 2003 because Saddam was a jerk and was not letting the weapons inspectors do their jobs of inspecting (something he had not permitted for about half a decade)

Two whole years separated the two wars we are still engaged in. I have always felt that Bush Jr went to war with Iraq to make up for (a) Saddam’s failed attempt on Bush Sr’s life and (b) Clinton ignoring the treaty (i.e., not inspecting the weapons) resulting from the Gulf War.

It’s all one war in my mind. And in the minds of the US government as well, no? Don’t both fall under the War on Terror category? Do you think Iraq II wasn’t already being planned when 9/11 happened? As you said, Bush was itching to get in there…9/11 was a perfect excuse.

I suppose you think that the Middle East is our #1 supplier of oil. I suppose it would surprise you to find out that the collective Middle East supplies less than 20% of our foreign oil supply. The majority, roughly 50%, comes from our own hemisphere: Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, etc. Another near-20% comes from Africa. So why would the war in Iraq be about oil? They are our #7 supplier. Would it not make more sense to, say, take over Canada? Or Mexico? Or heck, even drill in ANWR?

You’re correct, the ME is not our biggest supplier. No, that didn’t surprise me. They are, however, our most hostile supplier. We have no reason to invade the other countries you mention, since they’re perfectly happy to sell to us. The Middle East has hated us long before 9/11 due to our support for Israel, among other things. They’ve always played games with us, and they’d be much happier selling to China and India. Less politically embarrassing for them that way.

ANWR? Maybe 10 billion barrels there total…estimates only, not proven reserves. It’s not going to save us. Let’s say 7 billion was actually recoverable. We use 20 million barrels per day in the US. 7 billion barrels would add just under 1 year to our buffer. Similar story in the Gulf of Mexico. Iraq on the other hand claims to have something like 140 billion barrels. They’re probably exaggerating, but it’s still orders of magnitude bigger than ANWR.

And if you think a 20% or even a 5% drop in our oil supply is manageable…I would beg to differ. Without the Middle East flow prices would be sky-high and our economy would crash.

Not going to waste an hour+ watching a video on youtube; if it cannot be summed up in under 5 minutes, it is not worth the time.

Spoken like a true American! I even spent extra time cuing it up to the right place for you. Click the link and watch for 5 minutes.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

It’s all one war in my mind. And in the minds of the US government as well, no? Don’t both fall under the War on Terror category? Do you think Iraq II wasn’t already being planned when 9/11 happened?

No. Not at all. Definitely different wars to everyone in the Government–this is why the Democrats have almost unilaterally approved of the War on Terror while disapproving of the War with Iraq, because they are, in fact, two totally separate wars. Only the military presence in Afghanistan constitutes the War on Terror. The War with Iraq is a totally separate animal.
I do not believe Gulf War 2 was being planned after 9/11.

As you said, Bush was itching to get in there…9/11 was a perfect excuse.

This would be plausible, except for the simple fact that Bush never used 9/11 as an excuse to go into Iraq. It was always about WMDs. Always. Anyone who says otherwise has no idea what they are talking about. Or were too young to actually pay attention to what really happened.

You’re correct, the ME is not our biggest supplier. No, that didn’t surprise me. They are, however, our most hostile supplier. We have no reason to invade the other countries you mention, since they’re perfectly happy to sell to us. The Middle East has hated us long before 9/11 due to our support for Israel, among other things. They’ve always played games with us, and they’d be much happier selling to China and India. Less politically embarrassing for them that way.

I would think that the Middle East should thank us for being friendly with Israel. It is because of the American government that Israel has not wiped the Middle East off the face of this earth. The Israeli army could probably wipe out the entire Middle East in a month, maybe two. But we tell them, “No no, that would not be good!” Remember the 6-day War? Or at least reading about it? Israel was out-numbered by more than 2 to 1, yet they suffered about 1,000 deaths to the over-20,000 deaths suffered by Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, and Syria.

ANWR? Maybe 10 billion barrels there total…estimates only, not proven reserves. It’s not going to save us. Let’s say 7 billion was actually recoverable. We use 20 million barrels per day in the US. 7 billion barrels would add just under 1 year to our buffer. Similar story in the Gulf of Mexico. Iraq on the other hand claims to have something like 140 billion barrels. They’re probably exaggerating, but it’s still orders of magnitude bigger than ANWR.

This PDF says that there is an average of 18 billion barrels (recoverable) of oil with about 40% more being unrecoverable. A very usable amount, considering that the US actually uses less than 7 billion barrels a year. Gulf of Mexico has an estimated 45 billion barrels (I know the wiki article here says your 7-10 billion for the ANWR, but that was from a survey in 1998, the 2007 survey that I link doubles that estimate).

And if you think a 20% or even a 5% drop in our oil supply is manageable…I would beg to differ. Without the Middle East flow prices would be sky-high and our economy would crash.

I do not think you know anything about economics at all. I am sure you have heard of the words ‘supply’ and ‘demand,’ right? There is this crazy theory out there if you increase the supply, the demand goes down. If the demand goes down, this theory goes on to say that prices will decrease, not increase.
And considering the previously stated fact that the collective Middle East supplies less than 20% of our supply, it is completely manageable to re-stock that amount by using ANWR and Gulf oil supplies. Our economy would not tank because we have the oil we need (see above paragraph on supply & demand).

Spoken like a true American! I even spent extra time cuing it up to the right place for you. Click the link and watch for 5 minutes.

I watched. Seemed pretty sketchy.

 

[mgoforth]

This would be plausible, except for the simple fact that Bush never used 9/11 as an excuse to go into Iraq. It was always about WMDs. Always. Anyone who says otherwise has no idea what they are talking about. Or were too young to actually pay attention to what really happened.

Huh???

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations

“In the lead up to the Iraq War, U.S. President George W. Bush alleged that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and militant group al-Qaeda might conspire to launch terrorist attacks on the United States, basing the administration’s rationale for war, in part, on this allegation and others.”

Taken directly from GWB’s lips in a speech about Iraq on 10/7/2002:

“We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability – even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.”

• “Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.”*

So yes, of course it was WMDs…but in conjunction with terrorism.

I would think that the Middle East should thank us for being friendly with Israel. It is because of the American government that Israel has not wiped the Middle East off the face of this earth. The Israeli army could probably wipe out the entire Middle East in a month, maybe two. But we tell them, “No no, that would not be good!” Remember the 6-day War? Or at least reading about it? Israel was out-numbered by more than 2 to 1, yet they suffered about 1,000 deaths to the over-20,000 deaths suffered by Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, and Syria.

I’m 100% confident the Arab states don’t see it that way…and they do not thank us for being friends with Israel.

This PDF says that there is an average of 18 billion barrels (recoverable) of oil with about 40% more being unrecoverable. A very usable amount, considering that the US actually uses less than 7 billion barrels a year. Gulf of Mexico has an estimated 45 billion barrels (I know the wiki article here says your 7-10 billion for the ANWR, but that was from a survey in 1998, the 2007 survey that I link doubles that estimate).

I do not think you know anything about economics at all. I am sure you have heard of the words ‘supply’ and ‘demand,’ right? There is this crazy theory out there if you increase the supply, the demand goes down. If the demand goes down, this theory goes on to say that prices will decrease, not increase.
And considering the previously stated fact that the collective Middle East supplies less than 20% of our supply, it is completely manageable to re-stock that amount by using ANWR and Gulf oil supplies.

First of all…that’s not how supply and demand works. Increasing supply does not decrease demand. What you meant to say, I’m sure, is that price decreases with increasing supply…price being the intersection of supply and demand.

Secondly as supply increases, demand will eventually increase as well to consume all available supply - at least for a commodity like oil. Supplies have been increasing since the nineteenth century, and demand has stayed lock-step with it. Demand is set to outstrip supply shortly, with China and India growing at 8% a year or more. Also the oil exporting nations themselves are consuming more and more of their own supplies…leaving less and less to sell to the rest of us.

I do know a bit about economics.

Unfortunately the combined reserves in ANWR and GoM (even if I give you the most optimistic estimates) is about 63 billion barrels. The largest five countries in the Middle East claim to have over 760 billion barrels! Again, orders of magnitude…

Our economy would not tank because we have the oil we need (see above paragraph on supply & demand).

So I probably shouldn’t point out that our economy already has crashed due in part to oil prices (2008), and is about to do so again?

I watched. Seemed pretty sketchy.

Thank you for watching.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

Breaking somebody’s nose because you disagree with them is “un-Christian.”

Being a pacifist, a priori, is not.

God Bless, ICXC NIKA

Having been spit on because I was a Naval Officer during the Vietnam War, and in its aftermath, being told by the personel department of a major corporation:“We don’t hire war criminals”, I know dotting an obnoxious peaceniks nose may be unchristian, but it sure would feel good…and I am sure it would only be a venial sin!

 

[Contarini]

Ahh, one of my favourite topics. Pacifism.

A pacifist is one who believes that violence should be the last recourse.

No. That’s just a decent, moral person. A pacifist is better defined as someone who thinks that violence (at least lethal violence) is never a legitimate recourse at all.

Otherwise you’re watering down the word so that it really doesn’t mean anything any more, and has little connection with the more common usage of the word, making for confusing communication.

A friend of mine once claimed to be a “kind of vegetarian” because he ate fish but not meat. Same thing. A “pescatarian” is not a kind of vegetarian, and a person who advocates the responsible, restrained use of lethal force as a last resort is not a kind of pacifist.

The other group tends to be vets. Men and women who have seen combat, and what it does to people. They have also seen what happens when good men and women stand aside and let evil happen.

You’re assuming that the alternative to war is “letting evil happen.” There are a lot of false assumptions in that dichotomy.

I entirely agree (this applies to George Steigmeir’s post too) that treating veterans with disrespect because you don’t agree with war (or with a particular war) is despicable. If, that is, we mean actual rudeness and discrimination. One can refrain from venerating them in the manner that other people do (obsequiously going up to them and saying “Thank you for your service,” for instance) without showing disrespect.

Similarly, a Protestant can refrain from asking for a Catholic priest’s blessing without resorting to rudeness and disrespect. Pacifists should treat members of the military or veterans the way they would treat clergy of a religion they don’t believe in. Because that’s basically what you are.

Edwin