Wow! What a show!

[Jefferson]

Did anyone listen to the debate yesterday between Bob Enyart and John Lofton? It's the Wednesday show at http://www.kgov.com entitled, "John Lofton meets Bob." I knew it would turn into a war. Bob, I'm sure, was aware of who Lofton was but I doubt very much that he has ever met him personally or heard Lofton debate before. I have and I knew what was coming. Lofton is as fiesty as Enyart if not more so. I anticipated this debate like two heavy-weight champions going at it. Sure enough, I was not disappointed.

Although I think Enyart had the stronger arguments, I do take issue with him on one very significant thing. Enyart said he is in favor of attacking Iraq if it is our national interest. Well, since their are so many hot spots accross the world right now it would be advantageous for North Korea to attack South Korea, and China to attack Tiawan and anyone else who fears US retaliation to all make their moves simultaneously when the US invades Iraq. If they do there will be little we could do about it because our military would be spread way too thin around the world. Therefore it would not be to our advantage to invade Iraq IF there is this new axis.

 

[Yxboom]

I usually d/l the shows and while off time I listen to the shows. I am a week behind but I will make exception and check it out

 

[Gerald]

Re: Wow! What a show!

Originally posted by Jefferson
Enyart said he is in favor of attacking Iraq if it is our national interest. Well, since their are so many hot spots accross the world right now it would be advantageous for North Korea to attack South Korea, and China to attack Tiawan and anyone else who fears US retaliation to all make their moves simultaneously when the US invades Iraq. If they do there will be little we could do about it because our military would be spread way too thin around the world. Therefore it would not be to our advantage to invade Iraq IF there is this new axis.

That's where playing the nuclear trump card comes in...

 

[Poly]

Yes... very good show. I like it when Bob gets to debate somebody that keeps him on his toes though I've never heard anybody stump him. One of my favorites debates is when he had Eugenie Scott on his show... All time classic!!

 

[Ryokan]

So long as china has its honor, it has alot more to lose from invading taiwan than by letting it be. And in theory the us is supposed to be able to fight two wars on major fronts, i.e. Iraq and N. Korea, and a smaller conflict, i.e. Afghanistan, at once.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Polycarpadvo
Yes... very good show. I like it when Bob gets to debate somebody that keeps him on his toes though I've never heard anybody stump him. One of my favorites debates is when he had Eugenie Scott on his show... All time classic!!

Yea... that was a good show (the Eugenie Scott show). Exept Eugenie hardly kept Bob on his toes.

Eugenie hid in bathroom and put up very little fight.

 

[Poly]

Yea... that was a good show (the Eugenie Scott show). Exept Eugenie hardly kept Bob on his toes.

Yeah I think I need to use a better choice of words. More like giving something he can at least chew a little. I agree though. She had many words but nothing to say.

Eugenie hid in bathroom and put up very little fight.

Right, all while playing with her kitty cat.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I am going to move this thread to the new Bob Enyart Live forum.

 

[1Way]

I realize that Bob had his hands full just trying to keep the guess on topic, but John made an interesting point about the atomic bomb being an example of terrorism because of it having no real pretense of a military target. I’ve heard Bob E. and Doug M. speaking rather favorably about the a-bomb, but I don’t know their position about the charge of terrorism. I would think that the most defining element of what terrorism is, is that it targets civilians instead of conventional military wartime targets.

Specifically, was our use of the a-bomb terrorism?

And generally, is using the a-bomb terrorism if it destroys “way more than just military targets”, namely civilians and or national treasures, private property, livestock, businesses, etc.?

NOt that I am fully perswaded one way or the other, but so far, I would suggest that it is terrorism. So I don’t understand why Bob and Doug seemed to talk rather favorably about it’s use.

 

[1Way]

Ok, I heard Bob comment on another show that war is bringing a nation against another nation, so civilian casualties are apparently part and parcel to warfare, and he mentioned that apparently the A bomb destroyed much less people than a messy land invasion would have, say in trying to take over their nation’s capitol.

I sort of agree with this line of reasoning, except that civilian nationals may take moral opposition to a nation’s warfare, and so in that case, killing innocent civilians would be terrorism in my opinion.

I imagine that Japan had their civilians pretty much programmed into supporting the war effort, but the rule that you can kill civilians if you are in a just war with that nation seems unjust if you have righteous dissenters.

Any comments?

 

[Jefferson]

1 Way:

I tend to agree with you. If Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military bases that would be one thing. But they were just civilian populations. Wouldn't that be terrorism?

 

[1Way]

Jefferson – I tend towards it being terrorism, especially if civilians are morally just in opposing their nation’s warfare. It is not realistic to expect that most innocent righteous opponents can escape from their country. Sometimes the government just does not allow the freedom of travel for example, especially international travel in times of war.

But in the case of Japan, from everything I’ve heard, they had the nation’s moral support, probably due to it’s unusually socialistic governmental controls, and propaganda campaigns. Bob argued that a ground attack to take over the capitol for example would have been way more destructive, but what about air raids bombing military and government targets with less powerful bombs than the A bomb?

I guess terrorism is not possible in wartime, yet I think the Israeli Palestinian conflict amounts to warfare yet I think Bob would suggest that Israel is attacked by terrorists all the time. So I am not clear on his position, especially since supporting our A-bomb attacks on Japan, and saying that apparently terrorism does not happen during warfare because two or more nations are at war, so civilian casualties are part of that risk.

I'm still downloading some recent shows, so I may learn more as time goes on. I don't like a world that is ruled by the guy with the most nukes. Frankly, the ability to eradicate multitudes of life is frightening, even terrorizing.

But I don’t agree with that John guy that Israel is Goliath. Israel has a right to their land, and I believe they would not engage in aggressive unjust warfare but tend to fight for just self-defense reasons.

 

[Bob Enyart]

You know what's weird, I have a google alert that just notified me of this thread (after all these months? weird!). At any rate, now that I'm here, I might as well respond to:

Since their are so many hot spots accross the world right now it would be advantageous for North Korea to attack South Korea, and China to attack Tiawan and anyone else who fears US retaliation to all make their moves simultaneously when the US invades Iraq.

Well, this fear never materialized .

-Bob