(03-06-2012 06:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: So what if you really believed he would use it? How would that change your response?
It certainly would change my response. I wouldn't kill him before he acquires it though. That's murder; self defense is only justified when the danger is imminent. Though if I do believe he'll use it the second he acquires it I'd wait until we reach that precipice to the best of my information.
But that's everything else being equal. In this instance, everyone else doesn't believe he is going to use it, and not just my loony liberal neighbor either. Certainly I have to take into account that everyone else believes him to be a rational actor who wouldn't use it to kill me.
Quote:You probably have close to half as many as the friend, per counts I've seen, and the friend's announced intentions are to draw down to a number smaller than yours--although his are mostly of a much larger caliber.
And his are stationed all over the neighborhood, underwater and above ground. Regardless, there are enough of these guns to guarantee complete and total annihilation on him and his family if he uses it. Only a suicidal irrational actor would use it. And add to that he also considers my house his holy land which would be desecrated if he were to use any of these guns.
Quote:Quote:And if I attack him his family will lash out at my friend who has family members stationed around the neighborhood.
What if he doesn't have any family stationed around the neighborhood? Except maybe one relatively small but violent group of terrorists living next door that you're already having to fight now.
(The friend who has family members stationed around the neighborhood is the US, with troops in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and non combatants in Iraq. I would agree Iran doesn't care/isn't concerned about Israeli retaliation against Hamas).
Quote:What if you didn't have enough land to be able to give the people "living in the doghouse" a big enough plot for them to live, except by leaving yourself so small a plot that you couldn't live?
And what if the doghouse they're living in now is better than the way they've been treated by their brothers, or more properly their half-brothers, for the last 1000 years or so?
The neighbors are really half-brothers of the folks in the doghouse. They're cousins of YOU.
I'd make my family members who have built their own tents in my backyard evacuate, and apologize to them for encouraging the pitching of said tents.
They're cousins of me but we're estranged and they by and large sympathize with the people in the dog house--even the people in my enemy's household who are not blood relatives. Or, at least the non-heads of households do. What happened to the doghouse residents during the neighborhood association reign of the guy looking to get out of the neighborhood doesn't really matter to these people.
Quote:Quote:And if I really felt I had no other option but kill this guy, I'd tell my friend who bought me all the guns and who will have to pick up the fight with his family for me about it so he can at least withdraw people from around the neighborhood or have the chance to distance himself from the attack.
What if the people you are calling "his family" actually think of themselves more as your family than his? After all, you and they are cousins, whereas they share noting with him but a similar religion (not the same, but very similar, kind of like Roman Catholic versus Bible Church here). Actually they fear him because they believe he has territorial ambitions to wipe them out and re-establish his control over the whole neighborhood, just like he had many years ago. In fact, he even went to trouble of changing his name about 70 years ago for the express purpose of currying favor with some really nasty people who lived across town, that he thought would help him overrun his neighborhood.
("His family" isn't a separate entity; it's the American civilians and troops stationed throughout the Middle East. I would agree the Arab neighbors don't trust the Persians or want him to get nuclear weapons either).
Quote:For the record. I would not attack Iran. I would let Israel do it, at least as long as I believed that it was okay with the Arab world for Israel to do it. And as far as I have been able to determine, it is very okay with at least the leaders of the Arab world.
Speaking as an American, I don't want Israel to attack if it puts Americans in jeopardy and it isn't otherwise vital to our interests. I really don't think it is. It would be different if we wouldn't get blamed and didn't have people in the region. If Israel insists on going forward without so much as warning us, as is apparently the case, I would pull all personnel out of the region and publically distance myself from whatever actions they take. Of course Obama cannot do the last part--you've seen how Romney is making him out to be anti-Israel at AIPAC as it is. He's walking a tightrope right now between starting another war which I'm sure he realizes would be devastating for us and not giving ammo to the neocons to make the case he wants Israel blown sky high. The problem in my eyes is Netanyahu, who may or may not believe Iran is irrational and would use the nuke but either way is making the case in which he is the minority on the issue. Whether he really believes it's an existential threat or is just blustering and wants to maintain the balance of power, he can convince people here and in Israel he does and he knows that's his trump card.
/
Why can't we have someone as logical & clearheaded as Netanyahu?
