#10: Who wants death?

THREAD BEGAN: October 11th, 2004
Thread #4: 'Hoping for Disaster' just won't seem to stay dead...

BOB: For the last time I would like to reply to Jay’s questions about a ‘moderate disaster.’ He was kind enough to give me a mad-lib style, fill-in-the-blank question. So here it goes… His email looked like this:
“A moderate disaster constitutes _____________________________. I think you say unsuccessful enough. What do you mean? Unsuccessful enough = _____________. how many deaths? disasters are measured by casualties.”
Well, Jay…A moderate disaster constitutes: Any number of scenarios that turns U.S. public opinion against the War. These could include: increased U.S. casulties OR skyrocketing costs OR Iraqi protest OR Colin Powell spilling his guts and telling the world that he damn well knew that those mobile-weapons labs never existed. Could be anything really, anything that insures that the American people don’t allow this type of imperialism-in-the-name-of-national-security to be repeated.
Unsuccessful enough: Let me start by saying that:
There are lots of people living under repressive regimes.
There are lots of nations breaking UN resolutions.
There are lots of countries further along in regards to developing nukes.
There are lots of nations with more Al-Queida ties.
We chose to intervene in Iraq because it looked profitable. Period. So, in order for this type of foreign policy not to be repeated, this ‘Iraq Experiment’ needs to fall below the break-even point for the companies that had hoped to turn a profit. Simple economics. If it does, it won’t be repeated.
Jay, it’s obvious that we don’t see eye-to-eye on this. But please stop saying that I am hoping for U.S. casualties to prove a point or to put a Democrat in office. I'm not.
Maybe I am right, maybe I am wrong, but in my opinion this type of Bush foreign policy is putting our nation in great danger. As I said before, I believe that a moderate disaster in Iraq would lead to a strategical change in the War on Terror, before it is too late. Before the flames of terrorism / anti-Americanism / Islamic Fundamentalism have been fanned so high that the old enemy and his new young recruits become an even greater threat to national/global security.
My last explaination, Hewitt

JAY: you say, "These could include: increased U.S. casulties. " there is no justification for saying that. does anyone else think that is just wrong (to hope for increased u.s. casualties). this is coming from a liberal whos argument against afghanistan rested on the deaths of civilians. makes no sense. what about your feelings about the war in afghanistan? has your position changed since our discussion at arnies? clearly nobody objects to that now. the reason i ask is b/c if your position changed on that maybe it will change on iraq. "for the last time" you need to analyze your positions on things and realize the huge contradictions.

CHUCK: Jay, you say "there is no justification" for Bob's explanation of moderate disaster, which may include more deaths. Well, I think bob gave the justification: In his opinion, in the long run, it will make us safer. That's his belief.
Consider this: You think the death of over 1000 troops is justified to make us safer. No one is attacking you as being some crazy, evil person. So quit implying that bob is some american-hating, military-hating wisher of doom and death.
Bob has a vision of what makes us safer. It seems to involve never tolerating preemptive attacks. And if there is death needed to eliminate the bush doctrine, then so be it. Another vision is that preemption is needed to make us safer. And if there is death needed to eliminate a possible threat, then so be it.
So you are both okay w/ death of americans in order to keep us safer. So Jay (and others) can quit acting like Bob is Dr. Death. You both have the same goal: A Safer World, and America. You just have different views of how its accomplished.
I agree w/ Bob. And I assume Bob agrees, that hopefully the Bush Doctrine can be eliminated w/out more death. Just as I am sure Jay wishes we could have eliminated Sadaam w/out any death.
(by the way, interesting thought on Powell coming out of the closet. perhaps after kerry is president, but i doubt it. I would assume that book will come in 15-20 years)

JAY: chuck, you go through your argument and then state, "I agree w/ Bob. And I assume Bob agrees, that hopefully the Bush Doctrine can be eliminated w/out more death." maybe you didn't read what bob said, and if you did how did you pass the LSAT (where is the logic). he said he wants more u.s casualties to make us safer in the long run then you say, "that hopefully the Bush Doctrine can be eliminated w/out more death." you don't agree w/ bob, unless i'm completely fucked up. and i haven't had a drink since saturday
i'm done w/ this. we know bob's stance and i think it's completely wrong. waiting for bob's response on afghanistan. going on a week now

CHUCK: Jay, Jay, Jay, That is completely wrong. Bob gave 4 possible scenarios which could destroy the public support of the Iraq war. 1 included more death. 3 did not (powell speaks out, the financial burden is too much, and something else, which i forget).
So as you insult my logic, I will insult you reading skills and basic mental capacity: Can you Read?
And I will say once more, I hope the Bush Doctrine is destroyed w/out more death. So that means, I hope opinion turns based on one of the other factors.
So I make a great explanation of why you should quit acting like Bob is evil. And you respond by acting like I am illogical and dumb. Fortunately Bob has this website where everyone can re-read the thread and see how you are the one that either: 1) misrepsented what I said to make me sound dumb, or 2) that Jay File is not capable of reading.
Hustle up Bob, get the thread posted. People need to judge for themselves.
What a joke Jay.
I have been think even more about this, Jay.
Can you see the ridiculousness of your email. You have railed against bob for being a horrible american-hater for weeks because of his "moderate disaster" claim. Then I articulate how you both turn the other cheek at a little death to get to a positive ends (in each of you opinions).
And you just ignore any point I made. You avoid acknowledging, "maybe Bob isnt the worst person alive". You just attack me, and claim me illogical.
Answer this Jay: Was there 4 scenarios that Bob claimed he wanted, and only 1 of them involved more american deaths? And if so, why do you ignore the other 3 possibilities that would not involve american death when insulting me?
I am dying to know. You always accuse everyone of not answering Q's. So just answer these Q's, and prove you never act as horrible as us other question dodgers.

JAY: yes, i can read. bob stated a few scenarios, one being the deaths of U.S. soldiers. which means that he would like to see the deaths of u.s soldiers to prove a point. i disagree. i read your argument that we both condone the deaths of soldiers to make us safer, but i disagree. i don't want anyone to die to prove a point. i would hope nobody dies, including the opposition. then you say that you agree w/ bob b/c you don't want more death. bob wants death. those ae different stances. chuck, this is a waste of time anyway. i really want to hear bob's response to the war in afghanistan and yours for that matter.
you say,"Was there 4 scenarios that Bob claimed he wanted, and only 1 of them involved more american deaths? And if so, why do you ignore the other 3 possibilities that would not involve american death when insulting me?
ok, what if there were only 2 scenarios and one was death? or 1000 scenarios? how many scenarios do there have to be to fade out the one insane one, MORE DEATH. anyone who WANTS that is taking crazy pills. i'm not ignoring anything, i understand the logic of the other 3. i think it's inhumnane to wish for death to prove a point, especially from a liberal who is against all war. would the preemptive attack be ok if we had more allies like you say? if so, you are saying you are against war unless everyone else says it's ok.

CHUCK: I agree this is a waste of time, because no one wants more death. And if Bob genuinely wants more death, then he can fight his own argument, because i disagree (but i dont think he wants that)
You wanted to go to war. Bob wants to end a war. Both involve death. Neither of you want it. But its a reality. So quit acting like one person is "inhumane" and the other is fighting for liberty and democracy. Afghanistan: I don't really know the context of what you are asking. But here is my opinion. It was needed. I actually opposed invasion at the time. But that was the Kucinich coming out in me, and I was wrong. We needed to invade and dismantle the taliban. We maybe should have sent a few more troops. The situation should definitely be better over there, but resources were diverted. I dont know what else I should say. Overall, I think Bush did a decent job there. He probably waited too long and sent too few troops, but I'll cut him tons of slack for that because he was in a crazy situation right after 9/11.

BOB: Alright, well these back and forths between Chuck and Jay have been entertaining. Chuck, thanks, but give it up. (I would appreciate it if one of the conservatives on this Blog would chime in and tell Jay that he is being irrational. He just doesn't listen to us unAmerican liberals.)
You know what? To save everyone from this ridiculous arguement: I conceed.
Jay is a compassionate conservative who wants peace and liberty to be spread across the world.
I am a blood-thirsty liberal who wants death, yes, iron-maiden, skull-and-crossbones, faces-of-death type shit. (I did go through a short Goth spurt in High School).
For God's sake, let's move on to real issues!
Wanting death (of this lame arguement), Bob
PS Also Jay, at the bottom of the #8 thread I wrote:
"PSS Jay: I ALREADY TOLD YOU that I wasn't against AFGANISTAN! We have had this conversation 10 times already! I am not/was never against toppling the Taliban."
So I have resonded to this already as well.
Let me just say, for the last time: I do not honestly remember saying that. IF I said that we flat-out shouldn't invaded Afganistan and bring the Taliban to justice, then I was wrong. I can't tell you anymore about a conversation that I honestly don't remember.

JAY: bob, are you going to sit there and insult me and yourself by totally lying? you don't remember sitting at a booth at arnies w/ patty and i adamantly protesting the war in afghanistan? you and patty were saying how the civilian casualties outweighed the benefits of the war. i'm sure maney will remember. this was right in the beginning of the war in afghanistan. at least chuck can admit he was against it in the beginning. ask patty if she remembers. if you don't admit this you have lost all credibility in my eyes and i will be forced to call you by your new name "flipper" (i think you just don't want to admit you were wrong and i was right). i'd like to get a direct e-mail from patty on this. by the way i'm not truly a conservative. i have always voted democrat and i'm on the democratic ticket on all the civil liberty issues. however, the issue of iraq and national security trumps everything right now and i like bush's stance. the gays can wait a few more years.

BOB: Now I am really getting annoyed, Jay.
I told you: I don't remember the details of some half-drunk conversation that we had at Arnie's a few years ago. And I don't.
(I know that that sounds unbelievable, but its true.)
And you think that I should be worried about 'losing all credibility' in the eyes of someone who is proclaiming that "bob wants death"?!
If you are so sure that Maney remembers this conversation, then get him on the line! He is a member of this Blog, you know.
So call me 'flipper' or whatever you want, as long as you get off this so that we can start talking about the real issues of this election again. Bob
PS stop pretending to be on-the-fence

JAY: this is it. i swear. you are attempting to make me look like i'm misleading what you said. so in your own words. "Jay, I WANT TO SEE DISASTER!..... I want to see a moderate disaster in Iraq because I truly believe that in the long run it will make America safer. Do you think that I am disturbed?" (blog 4) Then i asked what constitutes a modersate disaster and among other things you claim constitute a moderate disaster you say, "A moderate disaster constitutes: Any number of scenarios that turns U.S. public opinion against the War. These could include: increased U.S. casulties." (blog 10) In your own words you say it. So you say you don't want death? you just want u.s. casualties. am i spinning this in some way? i don't think so. i understand completely about your other scenarios, but when you say us casualties you go to far.
afghanistan. once again ask patty and as soon as i get a hold of maney he'll respond. i have never been as irritated as i am now. you are denying you ever stood against the war in afghanistan by saying you don't remember? your defense is i don't remember. just want to emphasize this for our record. sounds convincing to me. now i'm off this.
about "pretending to be on the fence." i am voting for bush period, period, period. do you consider me a conservative if i'm for bush's stance in iraq, i'm for gay marraige, for gays openly in military, for gay adoption, for abortion, for stem cell research, for heightened gun control. does that sound conservative to you?
i'm done w/ these issues. i still think you are lying about your afghanistan position. if anyone remembers bobs stance in afghanistan jump in. patty, maney, zelin?
read your argument against the war in iraq. the same one that follows your explanation about "bob wanting deaths" (blog 10 and 4). how can you say that and aprove overthrowing the taliban and pushing democracy in afghanistan. i think you are all over the board. You say, "Could be anything really, anything that insures that the American people don’t allow this type of imperialism-in-the-name-of-national-security to be repeated." Isn't that what we did in afghanistan?

CHUCK: this is out of hand, but now i am jumping back in. Jay, if bob's wants death, will you please admit that your position (invading iraq) could also be seen as 'wanting death' in the name of making america safer. because any reasonable person knows attacking a country will result in death