This Iraq debate thing !

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Sat Feb 22, 2003 4:36 pm

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
Assuming the intention is to occupy the country, has there been any indication by the Bush administration that occupying is their intention?

I don't think Dubya wants an occupation or to set Americans up to be shot at. He's not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he's smart enough to not want Iraq to become another Vietnam. I think he wants Americans in Iraq long enough to serve him well come re-election time, but he also wants to install a friendly puppet government before casualties begin to mount.

Just out of interest do you think that there is a chance they might use special forces to remove Saddam, I can't recall this being covered, if so just point me to the right place.

It is the official policy of the United States government not to assassinate individuals. We may target the phone Saddam Hussein happens to be holding and he may just "happen" to shoot him along with the phone, but we will not target him specifically. If Saddam Hussein were our target (as I believe he should be, see some of my comments about Iraq being a one-man show in one of the other threads), we could wipe out him and his entire inner circle with a half a dozen cruise missiles and not need to invade another sovreign nation simply because we don't like their leader.

This is politically undesirable for Dubya 1) because it makes sense and 2) it won't get him the political "bounce" in the polls a war provides that he will need for the next elections because his domestic policy is laughable, the economy is headed into a recession, the deficit is out of control and he will not be re-elected by the Supreme Court again.

at99 · Post by **at99** » Sat Feb 22, 2003 5:10 pm

I know Global exchange, ANSWER and WWP organized some marches here in OZ (these are extreme lefties)

I am shocked people dont acknowlege an anti-american feeling in OZ, having been involved in a number of Universities over the years , it exists alright and is IMO!

I am entitled to my opinion and other people have their opinion (however I did not intend to take a serious dig at people but I guess thats the problem with this text communcication)...thats all folks

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Feb 22, 2003 5:49 pm

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
Assuming the intention is to occupy the country, has there been any indication by the Bush administration that occupying is their intention?

If you listen to the administration rhetoric, everybody in Iraq wants a new ruler, everybody will work together, and the US will be welcomed everywhere while being fought only by Hussein's "few" troops. The US will take over quickly, install a wonderfully united democratic (TM) regime, then leave in a blaze of glory.

In fact, the military comments have been far fewer and a lot less sanguinary. They have no idea how many people will resist; and considering the Iraqi countryside, they could continue resistance for a long time via guerilla warfare, which is SOP in that part of Western Asia. The Iraqi opposition is badly divided, and basically consists of at least four major factions which want three separate countries. All of Iraq's neighbors want the nation to remain intact, and several have announced plans to invade if the factions splinter the country.

Occupation may therefore take a short time, or a very long time. Afghanistan is not typical, but it should furnish an example to anyone with eyes to see that Western values and governments cannot be created over night then abandoned to flourish. The central government is considered a joke by many of the Afghan warlords, who have never acknowledged it; the system imposed on them is quickly unraveling. Iraq has fewer such divisive groups, but its groups are much stronger and individually cohesive.

I've seen estimates of anything from one to ten years.

There is also food and water supply issues, just the transportation alone would be incredibly expensive. Just out of interest do you think that there is a chance they might use special forces to remove Saddam, I can't recall this being covered, if so just point me to the right place.

You may remember that Dubya broke rank with his predecessors in government by criticizing Clinton for not "taking out" Hussein. This prompted Clinton, who was silent up that point, to mention that he had tried to take out Hussein with a special forces attack, but that the "president" of Iraq was too hard to track. (Apparently, he keeps changing his residence out of fear of American attacks. I've no idea why.) Dubya backed off--which is so unlike him, that I'm tempted to think he'd tried the same thing, and failed. The US could always use a few missiles, as HLD suggested, but the collateral damage is high; not to mention the replacement of one dictator by another is probably something the US wants to avoid.

Of course, they'll get that, in the end. Iraq has been ruled by despotic regimes (with a very few brief spells for breathing) for more than 3000 recorded years. Cultures can be educated to shift values on a massive scale, but it requires a long period of time, great effort, and an obvious goal with a reward for success. This is not likely to prove sufficient to keep either the Sh'ias or the Kurds in line, both of whom want nationhood.

Perhaps this will the perfect time for the Canada and Alaska to mount an invasion of the US

I will surrender, provided my wife doesn't have to learn French. She has a terrible ear for languages, and does enough of a job on English. I'd hate to hear what she could do with French.

VoodooDali · Post by **VoodooDali** » Sat Feb 22, 2003 5:55 pm

Originally posted by at99
I know Global exchange, ANSWER and WWP organized some marches here in OZ (these are extreme lefties)

I can't respond to your generalizations about Australia, since I don't live there.

However, I do wonder what you really mean by stating that the above groups organized some marches.

World Worker's Party - the communist party is usually part of demonstrations against wars in Third World countries. Hardly representative of the overall anti-war movement.

Global Exchange is a human rights organization dedicated to promoting environmental, political, and social justice around the world. Since our founding in 1988, we have been striving to increase global awareness among the US public while building international partnerships around the world. -- I'm aware of this group primarily through their promotion of buying Fair Trade Coffee (directly from the farmers). This group actually mainly tries to use the power of boycotting products whose origin is other people's misery and buying instead from those who should rightfully profit (if ever a capitalist type of protest there was - boycotting is it). Since they are mainly involved in environmental causes, and fair trade (they are interconnected), as well as the anti-war campaign - I would hardly characterize them as "extreme lefties." This organization would appeal to the Al Gore types (do you think of Al Gore as an "extreme leftie"?)

International ANSWER is a coalition of groups formed after 9/11 to address the threat of war, racism against muslims, and the tearing down of civil liberties. ANSWER was the first to organize a lot of the marches, and have been instrumental in forming a response to the hawks. However, the more moderate groups have tried to distance themselves from ANSWER's more extreme statements. I've had a hard time finding anything on their website to indicate their so-called extremism, or any real coherent agenda other than preventing war and racism.

The grass roots campaign among more politically moderate people took longer to organize, and has only recently taken hold - for example, MoveOn.org which recently had a million more members sign up in the USA, and United for Peace & Justice, which organized the 2/15 marches.

Are you trying to characterize all the anti-war protestors as being all being Anti-American or "extreme lefties"?

What if I turned that around and said that the majority of people who are for the war are involved in groups like right-wing paramilitary and white supremacist groups? And I'm sure those groups are all for killing a few muslims...

There are extremists on both sides, at99. When you have as large an anti-war sentiment as was demonstrated on Feb. 15 and in general - I don't see how you can chalk it all off as being due to "extreme lefties."

Like Vietnam, the feelings about this so-called imminent war are split down the middle. Neither side gains anything by not listening to the other. Keep an open mind. Try to challenge your own assumptions.

at99 · Post by **at99** » Sat Feb 22, 2003 6:13 pm

Originally posted by VoodooDali
I can't respond to your generalizations about Australia, since I don't live there.

However, I do wonder what you really mean by stating that the above groups organized some marches.

World Worker's Party - the communist party is usually part of demonstrations against wars in Third World countries. Hardly representative of the overall anti-war movement.

Well 1 of us is wrong. I got my information from a media article in Herald/Sun large circulation newspaper from a credible A.Bolt columnist. (This guy wrote a thourough piece on it and I dont see why he would make it up and can get away with it but then I dont write for a living).

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Feb 22, 2003 6:22 pm

Originally posted by at99
Well 1 of us is wrong. I got my information from a media article in Herald/Sun large circulation newspaper from a credible A.Bolt columnist. (This guy wrote a thourough piece on it and I dont see why he would make it up and can get away with it but then I dont write for a living).

Andrew Bolt isn't a reporter. As you point out, he's a columnist, a person paid to give his opinions. He likes to do so in as large and colorful a way as possible. They make fun reading, if you're into that sort of thing, but they function as a bad source of *unbiased* information. One might as well claim Noam Chomsky (from the left) or Pat Buchanan (from the right) as sources of unbiased information. That doesn't mean they lack interesting ideas.

VoodooDali · Post by **VoodooDali** » Sat Feb 22, 2003 6:41 pm

All you have to do is look at their websites and decide for yourself whether they seem extremist:

Global Exchange

International ANSWER

at99 · Post by **at99** » Sat Feb 22, 2003 7:33 pm

Originally posted by fable
Andrew Bolt isn't a reporter. As you point out, he's a columnist, a person paid to give his opinions. He likes to do so in as large and colorful a way as possible. They make fun reading, if you're into that sort of thing, but they function as a bad source of *unbiased* information. One might as well claim Noam Chomsky (from the left) or Pat Buchanan (from the right) as sources of unbiased information. That doesn't mean they lack interesting ideas.

For heavens sake,
In this day and age if people are going to claim these things in public then I think this is illegal by A.Bolt to 'just make it up'. I read this guy all the time and he does not make wild claims without a backup. It is his word against a couple of members on a gamebanshee forum and I cant claim he is right but if you want to challenge this guy

email bolta@heraldsun.com.au but be warned, he does have tough reputation .

While we are at it, this forum is a SPY on a gamebanshee network (for Video games) and people will have varying views based on their experience , lifestyle, lack of experience etc.

(general comment for everyone)
How serious is this forum?
How serious do you take yourself?
I know some issues are complex and emotional but it is hardly the UN and hardly the 'keeper of the truth' and hardly requires proof of every opinion by 5 backup sources (This is a general comment not aimed at any 1 person). I dont believe people should take things to heart over this text message thing aimed at people you dont really know and probably will never meet. Nor should you aim to deeply offend someone even though messages may be taken the wrong way! You cant tell with text the emotion behind words (serious, casual, tongue -in-cheek)

The university I was at last year wanted to discourage this kind of text forum communication to people you have never met claiming it was too primitive'

If I knew it all I would not be occasionally giving my '2-cents worth' to some small forum in cyberspace .

I think we need to put things in perspective

VoodooDali · Post by **VoodooDali** » Sat Feb 22, 2003 9:12 pm

Oh please, I can't take Andrew Bolt any more seriously than Rush Limbaugh.

BTW, when it comes to opinion pieces, the writer is allowed to say what he wants, and it's supposedly understood that this is an opinion, not an investigative news piece. While newspapers have guidelines regarding factual accuracy, legally they are not required to fact-check an opinion piece. One of the criticisms of this type of journalism is that there is no incentive for the papers to do fact-checking, since what makes an op-ed writer popular (and sells papers - the bottom line) is the appearance of being an expert who is never wrong. Thus, corrections are relegated to a tiny box in a different section of the paper, or perhaps a letter to the editor. It would be rare indeed to see an opinion piece from an op-ed writer retracting a former piece and admitting he/she was in the wrong.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Feb 22, 2003 9:23 pm

Originally posted by at99
For heavens sake,
In this day and age if people are going to claim these things in public then I think this is illegal by A.Bolt to 'just make it up'. I read this guy all the time and he does not make wild claims without a backup.

And I never said he made up anything, or offered wild claims. Wherever you're getting this from, it's nothing I wrote. Read what you quoted, again. Interesting ideas? Paid to be colorful, and entertaining?

Yep, sure sounds like an accusation of lying.

Bolt is a colorful opinionated columnist, who is supposed to be amusing and larger than life, like other columnists in the dailies and weeklies trade. He takes incidents that happen to go along with his narrow political perspective, and blows them up into wonderful tirades that are fun to read. You can learn things from him, but he is not a serious source of general information on any subject--anymore than any heavily opinionated political columnist would be in a source which makes its revenues from entertainment rather than scholarly circles. Many of these newspaper columnists are paid to state their own perspectives in as extreme and loud a vein as possible, without regard to ameliorating circumstances from other POVs--however well they know these views exist, and contradict whatever they may be saying. They know it, and many of them comment jokingly about the fact when interviewed.

As a seriously informed person who knows so much more about geopolitics than 300 million Americans (as you've stated before), I'm shocked you're unaware of this. Want to find out about Iraq? Read well-researched books that cover the ancient and modern history of Iraq. I can suggest a good eight, if you'd like. Dig up information from all sides regarding current events. You can read (if you want) major journals and newspapers from all over the world on the Web, and listen to English language broadcasts from the public radio systems in more than thirty nations. There are library resources available to study; and you can build your own. An informed, credible world view doesn't come from reading a small group of paid political entertainers, however amusing and emotionally charged they may individually be.

One other point. Using a columnist or columnists who agrees with one's perspectives is a bad way to broaden one's base, and challenge one's own views of the world. They don't open any doors. They just build walls upon walls. Just my opinion, again, though I'm hardly a columnist.

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Sat Feb 22, 2003 10:34 pm

Originally posted by fable
One other point. Using a columnist or columnists who agrees with one's perspectives is a bad way to broaden one's base, and challenge one's own views of the world. They don't open any doors. They just build walls upon walls. Just my opinion, again, though I'm hardly a columnist.

Excellent point, fable. First and foremost, individuals like Rush Limbaugh or Bolt are entertainers...Limbaugh himself even alluded to this fact at one point during one of his broadcasts, and stresses it again and again when he asserts that it is "his" show, and he decides what calls to take. I don't think he claims to offer a "facts only" format...if he does, then it is simply a matter of his opinion.

The editorial columns are hardly the place to formulate opinions...

at99 · Post by **at99** » Sat Feb 22, 2003 10:45 pm

Originally posted by fable
And I never said he made up anything, or offered wild claims. Wherever you're getting this from, it's nothing I wrote. Read what you quoted, again. Interesting ideas? Paid to be colorful, and entertaining?

Yep, sure sounds like an accusation of lying.

Bolt is a colorful opinionated columnist, who is supposed to be amusing and larger than life, like other columnists in the dailies and weeklies trade. He takes incidents that happen to go along with his narrow political perspective, and blows them up into wonderful tirades that are fun to read. You can learn things from him, but he is not a serious source of general information on any subject--anymore than any heavily opinionated political columnist would be in a source which makes its revenues from entertainment rather than scholarly circles. Many of these newspaper columnists are paid to state their own perspectives in as extreme and loud a vein as possible, without regard to ameliorating circumstances from other POVs--however well they know these views exist, and contradict whatever they may be saying. They know it, and many of them comment jokingly about the fact when interviewed.

As a seriously informed person who knows so much more than 300 million Americans (as you've stated before), I'm shocked you're unaware of this. Want to find out about Iraq? Read well-researched books that cover the ancient and modern history of Iraq. I can suggest a good eight, if you'd like. Dig up information from all sides regarding current events. You can read (if you want) major journals and newspapers from all over the world on the Web, and listen to English language broadcasts from the public radio systems in more than thirty nations. There are library resources available to study; and you can build your own. An informed, credible world view doesn't come from reading a small group of paid political entertainers, however amusing and emotionally charged they may individually be.

One other point. Using a columnist or columnists who agrees with one's perspectives is a bad way to broaden one's base, and challenge one's own views of the world. They don't open any doors. They just build walls upon walls. Just my opinion, again, though I'm hardly a columnist.

I think your wrong here, I reckon the only way to prove this Bolt guy wrong is to get in touch with him personally (email) buts thats just me.

Ok fable , you win, I tried to calm the situation but everytime I do, I make it worse. I said keep this in perspective, you dont seem to share my view and gave another overly serious reply.
You sound like a very serious person who takes his opinions seriously.
I give up, your the king of gamebanshee forum (if this is what you want in life) , you try to give every opinion a credible background of source material. (I am not so detailed or that willing in big debates or may hold the same view) . You seem to like politics and intellectual discussion a lot more than me. I just like to give a general view or opinion (nothing to detailed). I dont believe this communication is good to do lot or is the 'wave of the future'.
I will stay out of your way.

You will probably want the last word in.

I

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Feb 23, 2003 12:14 am

Originally posted by at99
Ok fable , you win, I tried to calm the situation but everytime I do, I make it worse.

In fact, you've been repeatedly warned by Buck and three moderators over the last year to stop trying to propel threads into flamewars with your attacks on various nationalities. Was this...

Oh Dear Oh Dear, Fable your poor chappy

Now heres the whole problem. You Americans are completely naive about world outsilde your own country.

...an effort to "calm things down"? Do you really think the SYMers are all too stupid to read your posts, and draw appropriate conclusions?

I give up, your the king of gamebanshee forum (if this is what you want in life) , you try to give every opinion a credible background of source material.

First off, that trick of "I claim moral victory and will leave quickly, because you're arguing too hard for me" isn't going to work, especially as an 180 degree turn right after your "I claim moral victory and will leave quickly because you Americans are too ignorant to debate with." Secondly, no one is saying you have to provide credible backgrounds for your opinions, but as you've just seen by several posts from other people, your opinions won't otherwise look very credible. As you've posted here for over a year, you already know what to expect; it certainly shouldn't surprise you that you're being asked to justify your comments. Especially after you've just gotten through attacking my nationality and myself for having far too little geopolitical awareness to even enter into a debate with you.

You will probably want the last word in.

You pulled this once already, claiming victory, then continued posting when you realized no one believed you. That's old. Discussion, the exchange of ideas in a civil forum between people: that's eternally new and fresh, IMO.

Maharlika · Post by **Maharlika** » Sun Feb 23, 2003 2:41 am

Listen here, at99

Originally posted by at99
I think your wrong here, I reckon the only way to prove this Bolt guy wrong is to get in touch with him personally (email) buts thats just me.

Ok fable , you win, I tried to calm the situation but everytime I do, I make it worse. I said keep this in perspective, you dont seem to share my view and gave another overly serious reply.
You sound like a very serious person who takes his opinions seriously.
I give up, your the king of gamebanshee forum (if this is what you want in life) , you try to give every opinion a credible background of source material. (I am not so detailed or that willing in big debates or may hold the same view) . You seem to like politics and intellectual discussion a lot more than me. I just like to give a general view or opinion (nothing to detailed). I dont believe this communication is good to do lot or is the 'wave of the future'.
I will stay out of your way.

You will probably want the last word in.

I

...first and foremost, my font is teal, meaning I'm speaking as a member of this forum and not as a mod.

I think it is you who must put things in the proper perspective.

Fable is old enough and way past the "immaturity stage" to get a kick out of winning in debates, arguments and other discussions.

He just has that way in presenting his pov's. What's wrong with that?

This is all about respecting everyone's pov. Nobody, not even fable, is out to get you or anyone for that matter.Edit--- not unless one breaks forum rules.

Chill out dude.

Karembeu · Post by **Karembeu** » Sun Feb 23, 2003 5:30 am

Originally posted by RandomThug
Every issue has more sides than anyone will ever know. You can not blindly label the war in iraq a war for oil. The oil in itself is a representation of power, which is what all war is for. Power. But in the path of gaining power we might remove an evil man from power and attempt to better a nation.

You may disagree, but your opinion is not solid grounds for reasoning against bush. Not to mention Bush and Cheny dont run the whole show, while they may have flaws... thier flaws do not compare to the flaws of those we seek out.

And the fact that both France and Russia, (who strongly oppose of a war), have economic interests in seeing that a war doesn't break out makes the matter even more complicated. Just makes every regime hard to trust.
Whatever happens I hope it'll be for the best.

Btw - Can anyone offer me a good answer/viewpoint as to why the UN (or whichever authority "in charge") hasn't tried to prosecute Saddam Hussein in the "war criminal-tribunal" (or whatever it is called?!?). Or have they already tried that way?!?

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Feb 23, 2003 9:01 am

Originally posted by Karembeu
Btw - Can anyone offer me a good answer/viewpoint as to why the UN (or whichever authority "in charge") hasn't tried to prosecute Saddam Hussein in the "war criminal-tribunal" (or whatever it is called?!?). Or have they already tried that way?!?

Just my POV, but I think everybody is a little chary of pushing that War Crimes button, @Karembeu. It's been used only for the most blatant and publically obvious cases, such as Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Burundi. Even the Camer Rouge, Cambodia's answer to Hitler's elite, has escaped this.

Why? First, there will be the fact that most of the world simply turned a blind eye to what was happening there--the concentration camps, the racial proclamations, the death squads, the endless killings--even though it was known; guilt by avoidance. A host of powers knew what was giong on, and chose to ignore it. There's a measure of shame and guilt in that.

Perhaps more importantly, if the Camer Rouge are brought to trial, their answers will inevitably lead directly back to China, the Camer Rouge's main supplier. China is anxious to protect its human rights record (which is a joke) before the UN. And if Hussein was brought to trial, where do you think the trail would lead? Directly back to the US, and among others, to Rumsfeldt, who at several points as a private businessman handled corporate arms supplies to Iraq, and urged that the Iraqis be given biological weapons as the US surrogate in a war on Iran.

As I see it, this is the fundamental difficulty: world powers deciding that their international issues are more important than regional or local ones. This allowed/allows many countries to prop up and even make worse some of the world's least pleasant regimes. When those regime's practices become public, the world powers back off quietly, hoping that nobody will notice their prior involvement--or, as in the case of Rumsfeldt, they scream as loudly as possible in outrage against the regime, hoping to draw attention away from their own previous activities.

The actions of the US in fighting ratification of the UN Anti-Land Mine Treaty aren't really that surprising. The big powers are the main arms suppliers throughout the world, and have always fought against any restrictions to the supply of arms in third world nations. It's pretty obvious why.

One final note: I heard a a US government official quoted several months ago as saying that the US' refusal to recognize the World Court had nothing to do with military personnel, and everything to do with politicians who made "unfortunate" decisions. This comment was never followed up, and I strongly suspect it was both accurate, and never supposed to be leaked. But it makes good sense. Why go after a kid who pulls a trigger, when you can go after, say, a Henry Kissinger, with documented evidence of the blood of hundreds of servicemen and civilians on his hands?

Sojourner · Post by **Sojourner** » Sun Feb 23, 2003 9:15 am

Originally posted by fable
One final note: I heard a a US government official quoted several months ago as saying that the US' refusal to recognize the World Court had nothing to do with military personnel, and everything to do with politicians who made "unfortunate" decisions. This comment was never followed up, and I strongly suspect it was both accurate, and never supposed to be leaked. But it makes good sense. Why go after a kid who pulls a trigger, when you can go after, say, a Henry Kissinger, with documented evidence of the blood of hundreds of servicemen and civilians on his hands?

Precisely.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Sun Feb 23, 2003 11:29 am

Originally posted by at99
(general comment for everyone)
How serious is this forum?
How serious do you take yourself?

This forum is at the same time filled with unbridled silliness and an outlet for serious geo-political discussion. Everyone is welcome to state their opinion, and to have any opinion they want (no matter how unpopular), although if you make factual assertions, be prepared to back up your claim. People have demanded this from me and I have asked others to do the same. You will not receive any special treatment in this respect, nor will you be subject to any extra scrutiny.

The GameBanshee forums are among the most civil on the internet and that standard is maintained by the excellent moderators and the low tolerance for trolls and flamers among the membership. I believe that the membership here demands a high standard in its serious discussions and we expect a high level of respect from each other. At the same time, we have no compunctions about jumping on other members when arguments resort to name calling, logical fallacies and poor research.

If you disagree with fable (or me, or anyone else here), you are more than welcome to. You are also more than welcome to attempt to change our opinion, although as I've said before, our standards for debate are high, so be prepared to have your opinion challenged.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Feb 23, 2003 6:10 pm

@at99, I deleted your last post, a reply to HLD. I don't know what to suggest: you've just been warned yet-again directly by Buck about racist slurs in the ICC World Cup thread, and you had to do it here as well, uttering a slur-in-passing against everyone of French nationality--which you somehow thought would be okay because you called it "humor."

It's not okay to slur groups of people on GB. Whether you do it seriously, or for fun, it will get you kicked out of this board.

You've been told this time and time again. I strongly suggest you really pay attention to this, if you intend to post here, again.

at99 · Post by **at99** » Sun Feb 23, 2003 7:57 pm

Originally posted by HighLordDave
This forum is at the same time filled with unbridled silliness and an outlet for serious geo-political discussion. Everyone is welcome to state their opinion, and to have any opinion they want (no matter how unpopular), although if you make factual assertions, be prepared to back up your claim. People have demanded this from me and I have asked others to do the same. You will not receive any special treatment in this respect, nor will you be subject to any extra scrutiny.

The GameBanshee forums are among the most civil on the internet and that standard is maintained by the excellent moderators and the low tolerance for trolls and flamers among the membership. I believe that the membership here demands a high standard in its serious discussions and we expect a high level of respect from each other. At the same time, we have no compunctions about jumping on other members when arguments resort to name calling, logical fallacies and poor research.

If you disagree with fable (or me, or anyone else here), you are more than welcome to. You are also more than welcome to attempt to change our opinion, although as I've said before, our standards for debate are high, so be prepared to have your opinion challenged.

.

I agree with what you said.
There is a problem though.
How can you know about how a person will react to you message?
How can gauge if they will over-react?
Can you say my sense of humour wont offend someone else?
Some people hold 'fixed views ' on matters (I guess we all do) and no amount amount of 'patch work ' or good intent alter that,

Can a christian and muslim debate on the rights and wrongs of their religion in a civil matter (It depends how deeply they are fixed on own ideas doesnt it )
Do you think you could reason with sadam to tell him he is wrong in a civil debate?

I dont believe the human race is that adavanced IMO.

It does not matter how advance the technology is it cant make up for human failure!