Hubris

Posted by: lanovami

Hubris - 02/23/13 04:55 AM

Seen this? It was just as egregious and slimy as our worst fears? And think of all the things that came afterward. Shame on that cabal. War crimes tribunal is too good for them.

This is worth every minute it takes to watch it:
Posted by: DLC

Re: Hubris - 02/23/13 08:24 AM

Watched that last week on RM... made my blood boil. mad

They should indite Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rummy any way... this is TREASON and a human rights violation. We (USA) will have NO right to criticize other nations as long as we have this blood on our hands. >100,000 Iraqis died due to their lies ! 4000 more Americans died and 10s of 1000s suffered life changing injuries, and cost us Trillions ! it's called TREASON !!
Posted by: carp

Re: Hubris - 02/23/13 02:48 PM

Regardless the WAR on terror - is warranted and should continue towards that all terrorist are eliminated.

However;
Like I said before the WAR on Iraq was totally uncalled for.
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Hubris - 02/23/13 03:09 PM

Quote:
Regardless the WAR on terror - is warranted and should continue towards that all terrorist are eliminated

Nope.

"Terrorism" and "Terrorist" are so ill-defined and subjective that a "war" against either is in effect a license to exercise extraordinary powers in perpetuity: You're never going to eliminate "terrorism" itself, nor are you ever going to eliminate every last "terrorist" -- and so, the conditions that will end the "war" will never exist.

War powers granted to the executive are intended to be a temporary necessity in response to an existential threat to the country. The "War on Terror" removes the "temporary" part, in effect creating a permanent military democracy in which the "democracy" part is slowly subsumed by the constant materiel and security demands of an ever-increasing military (and those who profit from it) ...
Posted by: carp

Re: Hubris - 02/23/13 03:24 PM

You seem to answer your own debate - or are saying that , to let terrorist kill and murder when ever they want ? ?

Point being is that since terrorist are international , so therefor it is a global WAR.
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: Hubris - 02/23/13 04:08 PM

Agreed. You will never eliminate all of the "terrorists".
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Hubris - 02/23/13 04:25 PM

Quote:
You seem to answer your own debate

How so?

Quote:
or are saying that , to let terrorist kill and murder when ever they want ? ?

Your question presupposes the only alternative to our current strategy is to do nothing. I reject that supposition and suggest there are alternatives available that don't involve the endless extension of conventional military power abroad or the commensurate erosion of liberties at home ...

Quote:
Point being is that since terrorist are international , so therefor it is a global WAR.

And my point is that a WAR against "terrorism" is by definition (or rather, by the lack thereof) without end and poisonous to a democracy, and is therefore an unwarranted (not to mention self-defeating) response to the challenges posed by today's radical fringes.
Posted by: Jim_

Re: Hubris - 02/23/13 09:42 PM

Originally Posted By: six_of_one
And my point is that a WAR against "terrorism" is by definition (or rather, by the lack thereof) without end and poisonous to a democracy, and is therefore an unwarranted (not to mention self-defeating) response to the challenges posed by today's radical fringes.
Well put.

#6 for #1 in 2016. smirk
Posted by: steveg

Re: Hubris - 02/24/13 03:31 AM

You missed wide, carp. What six is saying is that a "war" of any kind against something that is so nebulous so hard to define, almost mercury-like is neither possible nor practical. The concept of victory is just that: a concept an idea that has yet to be executed. Cockroaches have evolved and survived for millions of years. Even the most advanced technology has been unable to eradicate the species. Sure, that's a predictable and easy analogy for how we might view terrorists in general. But more so in terms of how to deal with them. Maybe a simpler metaphor is Whack-A-Mole.
Posted by: carp

Re: Hubris - 02/24/13 09:15 AM

I understand what Big Six is saying - however you must do something

As nebulous as it is , you can measure success by the declining number of terror attacks. I am talking about the big organized attacks and not those from single wackos with a silly cause.
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: Hubris - 02/24/13 09:23 AM

Quote:
so hard to define, almost mercury-like


*cough* Mercurial
Posted by: steveg

Re: Hubris - 02/24/13 10:23 AM

Well, *cough* "mercurial has a variety of definitions, some of which have little to do with the physical properties and behavior of mercury the substance, and more to do with Mercury, the planet and mythical god. So, since I'm equating the definition of terrorism to the former, sue me if I opt for clarity. *cough* >:p
Posted by: steveg

Re: Hubris - 02/24/13 10:26 AM

Who said do nothing? Six's point and mine is that what you're pushing is way easier said than done. But that's not to say we'd all be happy campers if it were as easy to do as to romanticize about.

The fact is, no one can say whether we're seeing a decline or just a lull.
Posted by: carp

Re: Hubris - 02/24/13 12:23 PM

The fact is, no one can say whether we're seeing a decline or just a lull.

There is a decline since Osama went into hiding then , a further decline since Osama was killed.

Al Q, seem to switched gears and went into direct armed conflict - as opposed to terror tactics ?

Anyway; stop the flow of money (someone) is funding them <- catch that , then there will be no need to have booths on the ground. The same with the Taliban as well.

Stop the money.
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Hubris - 02/24/13 01:06 PM

I normally see the word mercurial in the idiom mercurial rise. A mercurial rise is something I never saw as fickle or volatile. However heard of a mercurial fall, even though it seems just as possible with that definition. Either way the definition makes more sense than just a surging mercury in a thermometer I guess. Can't help but wonder if the person who first coined the phrase mercurial rise didn't grasp the meaning of the word.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Hubris - 02/24/13 01:19 PM

Which is why I used "mercury-like". A leetle less obtooz and inteelecktchul. wink
Posted by: steveg

Re: Hubris - 02/24/13 01:20 PM

Booths on the ground? Like pay phones? confused
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: Hubris - 02/24/13 02:24 PM

Originally Posted By: lanovami
I normally see the word mercurial in the idiom mercurial rise. A mercurial rise is something I never saw as fickle or volatile. However heard of a mercurial fall, even though it seems just as possible with that definition. Either way the definition makes more sense than just a surging mercury in a thermometer I guess. Can't help but wonder if the person who first coined the phrase mercurial rise didn't grasp the meaning of the word.

I have always heard mercurial as related to a situation or personality which was volatile.
Yes, mercurial has a few definitions. I guess every time we use a word that has multiple meanings ( almost all of them) we should opt for a more wordy way of saying it in case some people don't get it.
Posted by: MrB

Re: Hubris - 02/24/13 09:29 PM

Terrorism is the act of an individual or group on a populace in order to create unrest . The threat of such works to keep a populace in the same state.

Our government does this to us also to keep us beholden to them.

Dave
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Hubris - 02/24/13 09:42 PM

Quote:
however you must do something

Again, the assumption seems to be that we either stay the course we currently pursue or do nothing. I suggest there are other options.

Quote:
As nebulous as it is , you can measure success by the declining number of terror attacks.

Really? I daily adorn a tin foil hat to protect against attacks from alien invaders. I also daily measure the success of this tactic by the declining number of alien attacks upon our planet. Therefore, the wearing of tin foil hats must be warranted, no?
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Hubris - 02/24/13 09:45 PM

Quote:
Our government does this to us also to keep us beholden to them.

To an extent, I actually agree with this.
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: Hubris - 02/25/13 04:49 AM

Originally Posted By: six_of_one
Quote:
however you must do something

Again, the assumption seems to be that we either stay the course we currently pursue or do nothing. I suggest there are other options.

Quote:
As nebulous as it is , you can measure success by the declining number of terror attacks.

Really? I daily adorn a tin foil hat to protect against attacks from alien invaders. I also daily measure the success of this tactic by the declining number of alien attacks upon our planet. Therefore, the wearing of tin foil hats must be warranted, no?


LOL.. six.. that's not a very good analogy. We actually have a history of earthly terrorist attacks while we have had none from beyond.
Terrestrial attacks are verifiable and measurable.

But I get your point, to an extent.
That's sort of like vaccinations. If we don't get the flu or disease... did it work?