Dale 2.0 (Or the Revenge of Robert?)

[Provost Harrison]

hey u guise

Ever wonder why you are not taken seriously when you write things like this?

[Robert]

Well, here's the real test: Robert, did you advocate invading Iraq and toppling Saddam prior to 9/11/01? And can you provide evidence you advocated such?

It's rather galling that you're so gung-ho about something that killed thousands of people in other countries, including mine, but in which your country wasn't involved and didn't have to make any sacrifice. I guess it's real easy to advocate other countries sending their soldiers to die for dubious causes.

I can't provide evidence that I did but I did.

For the record, The Netherlands have contributed to the Iraq war, we're a small nation, though we still contributed quite a lot compared to our size.

For the record, a dutch war casual is as terrible to me as an American or an Iraqi soldier or civilian that died in the war.

[Robert]

it's also very unchristian.

Why?

[Robert]

... and yes, I would've supported the idea of toppling Saddam prior to 9/11.

I support the idea of a military solution to the regime of Dear Leader in NK as well.

Yes, let me get this on the record as well now, I do also support military means to end the regime in North Korea. Though let's first wait what happens when old Kim dies and his son takes over. Perhaps military intervention isn't needed.

But if his son grabs power as steady as his father, then we should do something. We are already a couple of years too late now.
Having said that, I know that an invasion of North Korea is very very hard and may be impossible to do. I do not know how to do it. But I do support people with knowledge who do know how to do it. Not just to cause a massacre (which will happen if we 'just do it')

[Robert]

Obviously not. And it's even worse for nye, since he completely ignores things like civilian death toll, net misery, damage done to international terrorism-fighting efforts, and so on.

b/c under SH there was no civilian death toll?
He was not supporting international terrorism?
He was not destabilizing the entire regio?
He was not forcing the UK/USA to stay in the regio, causing more troubles?

The alternative of not dethroning SH is worse then actually removing him from power. Well, if it's done the right way. Unfortunately it wasn't.

[Robert]

NYE: "Honor the dead by killing another million" ?

It's exactly this kind of reasoning that causes the most killings.
People who do not dare to make decisions because it may hurt someone in the end hurt more people by not making a decision.

In dutch we have a saying that soft doctors make stinking wounds.
It always feels better to not declare war.
But now imagine that G. HW. Bush would have toppled SH already, instead of restraining (b/c of the UN). Then many many more deaths would have been avoided.

It's the same restraining the world leaders had when Hitler started WW II.
Then later more deaths were caused.

It's always the same feeling: "If we do nothing things may solve themselves".
Look at North Korea, if we would have had the guts to invade it 10 years ago it would have been a much better solution then now. Now millions already starved in North Korea. Not to mention the many killings by the regime.

It's always the people who do not dare to make tough decisions that in the end cause the most killings, just by leaving tyrants in place and not being able to act in time.

[ZEE]

.

[Provost Harrison]

you are just jealous that I have a better command of the British language than you do.

Yeah, that must be it...

[dannubis]

@ Plomp - Did it ever cross your mind that we shouldn't be the ones making that decision in the first place?

[notyoueither]

NYE: "Honor the dead by killing another million" ?

... or prevent another million victims.

[dannubis]

So, in principle, you agree with killing people before they even have the chance to commit a crime, to save their potential victims ?

Please note you don't have a prescient twin in reality...

[rah]

minority report.

[Robert]

@ Plomp - Did it ever cross your mind that we shouldn't be the ones making that decision in the first place?

Not making a decision is making a decision as well.
If you see that a man on the street is stabbed with a knife and you are capable to stop the stabbing but won't intervene, then you have decided to accept the stabbing to continue.

I acknowledge that it is a difficult decision though and you raise a good question, and politicians should ask themselves that question everytime. But not everytime the answer should be 'no'.

[Wezil]

So, in principle, you agree with killing people before they even have the chance to commit a crime, to save their potential victims ?

Please note you don't have a prescient twin in reality...

Potential? There is already a long body count. What makes you think it is going to suddenly stop?

[MikeH]

Not making a decision is making a decision as well.
If you see that a man on the street is stabbed with a knife and you are capable to stop the stabbing but won't intervene, then you have decided to accept the stabbing to continue.

I acknowledge that it is a difficult decision though and you raise a good question, and politicians should ask themselves that question everytime. But not everytime the answer should be 'no'.

A better analogy would be what to do if you know that your fictional knifeman is the main enforcer holding together a neighbourhood filled with extremly violent racial tensions. A knifeman who already has his every move strictly monitored and restricted by an international police force. You also know that stopping him stabbing this victim is likely to result in the victim's death and a power vacuum that means that you'll have to spend a trillion dollars and the lives of many of your countrymen trying to maintain order in his neighbourhood once he's gone.

Not to mention the fact that there are many other equally horrible knifemen nearby, some of whom have guns as well as knives who aren't as well restricted as this guy.