Gallup Poll
-
Christian Graus wrote: So they're still in place then ? Do you honestly believe they are even remotely comparable? Dave Huff In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. (Yogi Berra)
No, but it was an easy shot to take. I think that Saddam was a madman and it's a shame that he couldn't be taken out in a way that was not morally bankrupt. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
No, but it was an easy shot to take. I think that Saddam was a madman and it's a shame that he couldn't be taken out in a way that was not morally bankrupt. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
Christian Graus wrote: morally bankrupt. Why do you see it as morally bankrupt? Dave Huff In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. (Yogi Berra)
Dave Huff wrote: Why do you see it as morally bankrupt? When one country goes against the wishes of the world community, goes to war on another country sold to it's own people with deliberate lies, when the leader of that country is more concerned with political points than justice, one has to wonder which step of the process *isn't* morally bankrupt. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
And before the war there were 'reliable' UN estimates of 5000 dead Iraqi's per month due to the sanctions. So doesn't that mean that with the war over and the sanctions lifted the US has saved over 50,000 Iraqi civilians already? Do the math. Extrapolate to 23 years. Dave Huff In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. (Yogi Berra)
Dave Huff wrote: And before the war there were 'reliable' UN estimates of 5000 dead Iraqi's per month due to the sanctions. Actually - enough money was flowing into Iraq to feed the people. Saddam caused their deaths - not the sanctions. It is amazing that anyone would believe Saddam's lies. Imagine the following situation: A low-level drug dealer makes $1,000 a week dealing crack. The cops bust him and sentence him to 5 years probation. He is forced to get a job as part of his probation terms. Instead of feeding his children with the $200 a week he makes slinging burgers he buys malt liquor and weed. His child is reported to social services by a teacher. If you were to blame the USA for the starved Iraqis then you would also have to blame the police for stopping his drug dealing. You would believe that the drug dealer was a victim of the police and the police should not have stopped his drug dealing because he made lots of money and out of that money he bought food for his kid.
-
Dave Huff wrote: Why do you see it as morally bankrupt? When one country goes against the wishes of the world community, goes to war on another country sold to it's own people with deliberate lies, when the leader of that country is more concerned with political points than justice, one has to wonder which step of the process *isn't* morally bankrupt. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Christian Graus wrote: When one country goes against the wishes of the world community, So Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Poland, Spain, Italy... are not part of the world community. Or does the 'world community' have to include France and Germany to be morally pure? Christian Graus wrote: goes to war on another country sold to it's own people with deliberate lies Uh oh - I sense the old WMD argument. Based on pre-war intelligence - including that beloved 'morally correct' institution the UN - estimates - he had them. Where is the lie? Christian Graus wrote: when the leader of that country is more concerned with political points than justice Yeah nothing earns political points like putting your electorates sons and daughters lives on the line to eliminate a madman that is more of a direct threat to his own people and his neighbors than to your own. Dave Huff In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. (Yogi Berra)
-
Dave Huff wrote: And before the war there were 'reliable' UN estimates of 5000 dead Iraqi's per month due to the sanctions. Actually - enough money was flowing into Iraq to feed the people. Saddam caused their deaths - not the sanctions. It is amazing that anyone would believe Saddam's lies. Imagine the following situation: A low-level drug dealer makes $1,000 a week dealing crack. The cops bust him and sentence him to 5 years probation. He is forced to get a job as part of his probation terms. Instead of feeding his children with the $200 a week he makes slinging burgers he buys malt liquor and weed. His child is reported to social services by a teacher. If you were to blame the USA for the starved Iraqis then you would also have to blame the police for stopping his drug dealing. You would believe that the drug dealer was a victim of the police and the police should not have stopped his drug dealing because he made lots of money and out of that money he bought food for his kid.
Terry O`Nolley wrote: If you were to blame the USA for the starved Iraqis then you would also have to blame the police for stopping his drug dealing. Which just goes to show you can prove anything with a ridiculously contrived example. Eco (Props to Joel)
-
Christian Graus wrote: When one country goes against the wishes of the world community, So Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Poland, Spain, Italy... are not part of the world community. Or does the 'world community' have to include France and Germany to be morally pure? Christian Graus wrote: goes to war on another country sold to it's own people with deliberate lies Uh oh - I sense the old WMD argument. Based on pre-war intelligence - including that beloved 'morally correct' institution the UN - estimates - he had them. Where is the lie? Christian Graus wrote: when the leader of that country is more concerned with political points than justice Yeah nothing earns political points like putting your electorates sons and daughters lives on the line to eliminate a madman that is more of a direct threat to his own people and his neighbors than to your own. Dave Huff In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. (Yogi Berra)
Dave Huff wrote: So Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Poland, Spain, Italy... are not part of the world community. Or does the 'world community' have to include France and Germany to be morally pure? The combination of Britain and Australia ( in both cases, HUGE public demonstrations illustrated that the actions of our leaders were overwhelmingly rejected by our populations ), and a handful of 2 bit countries just excited that the US knew they existed is hardly a representation of the world community. It's a representation mostly of Blair and Howard being pussies. Dave Huff wrote: I sense the old WMD argument. And why wouldn't you ? Dave Huff wrote: Yeah nothing earns political points like putting your electorates sons and daughters lives on the line to eliminate a madman that is more of a direct threat to his own people and his neighbors than to your own. Sadly, it actually does. But not surprising. I bet you anything that if W had managed to catch Bin Laden, Saddam would still be in power. This had nothing to do with liberation, hell you guys were at the door in 1992, why not liberate Iraq then, or any other time in the past 10 years ? Because 9/11 'changed things'. Yeah, W was not going to get back in if the people remembered that he couldn't catch the guy who did it.... Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
Somehow I knew you would add another link to that sorry excuse of a website. No sane person is stupid enough to believe that site.
any reason? or are you just spouting? ClickPic | ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
-
any reason? or are you just spouting? ClickPic | ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
Go back a couple of months to when you first posted that link. My opinions haven't changed.
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: If you were to blame the USA for the starved Iraqis then you would also have to blame the police for stopping his drug dealing. Which just goes to show you can prove anything with a ridiculously contrived example. Eco (Props to Joel)
Other than obvious factual differences (ie Saddam was a president, not a drug dealer), what flaws do you see in my analogy?
-
Except that living conditions are improving rapidly - electricity is already more reliable and more widely available now than before the war. Sewer and water restoration is also pretty well advanced. Also the coalition is replacing and updating the crumbling pre-war infrastructure. Thousands of projects have been completed throughout the country and life for the ordinary Iraqi is probably comparable or better now than before the war (except that they no longer worry about 'disappearing' relatives). Hundreds of thousands of children have been innoculated, the drained swamps are being refilled, hundreds of independent newspapers have sprung up, and a host of other positives. Were Iraqi civilians killed during the war? Yes. Is the Iraqi population better off now than before the war? Yes. On balance would more Iraqis be dead if Saddam were left in power? I believe yes. You can go on griping about civilian casualties all you want but on balance the Iraqis are now better off than before. Just ask the ones protesting the ongoing terror campaigns from last week that included people who lost loved ones to the war and the others who lost limbs and sight. They obviously feel a little differently than you do. Dave Huff In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. (Yogi Berra)
Dave Huff wrote: Sewer and water restoration is also pretty well advanced. not everyone agrees. but let's assume you're right. now they're almost to the point they were at before we started bombing them. so, maybe sometime in the future things will actually be better (barring civil war, more terrorist attacks, violent outbursts over the fact that we've surrounded towns with barbed wire, etc). and that's the point of this thread, isn't it? : Based on this alone, does it justify the war? i say it doesn't. based on the rate at which we've killed Iraqis (and Americans) vs. the rate at which Saddam killed Iraqis (an no Americans), i say the war wasn't justified. come back in a year or so. ClickPic | ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
-
The funny thing about this 'saving Iraqis' business is that I don't remember Bush & Blair saying "We have to go into Iraq to save the citizens and prevent saddam from killing them. We have to put billions of your tax dollars into Iraq to build democracy. It is our goal to bring freedom and democracy to every brutal dictatorship on earth*!" In fact, what I do rememeber is "We have to prevent saddam from using Weapons of Mass Destruction in terrorist attacks like 9/11!" Well, that's been accomplished nicely, nothing to do with the fact that there were no WMDs of course :rolleyes:. Bush couldn't possibly have lied about his motives, could he? Not to us, I mean, we're much to smart to be taken in that easily. Aren't we?? But since Bush has apparently become a soft-hearted social activist (will he be growing dreadlocks anytime soon?), when can we expect the next country to be 'liberated from a corrupt regime**'? * At least those with large oil reserves. ** You know, one of those dirty third world countries where the government gives all the fat contracts to their friends. *** This rant was brought to you by two cups of coffee on an empty stomach -- I'm off to get something to eat, cheers. </rant>
« eikonoklastes »
Daniel Ferguson wrote: The funny thing about this 'saving Iraqis' business is that I don't remember Bush & Blair saying "We have to go into Iraq to save the citizens and prevent saddam from killing them. Actually Saddam's civil rights violations were mentioned in the same documents as Saddam's WMD (the ones that existed before the war but since they haven't been found yet means (to certain gullible ferfs) they never existed). They were parallel and equal bullet items. While it is true that the media replayed the WMD bullet item way more often than the civil rights bullet item, civil rights were listed as reason. And even if one of Bush's reasons for overthrowing Saddam wasn't civil rights, how does that change anything? Let's say I have a neighbor on my block who has already shot and killed a dozen people. I keep seeing him sticking his guns out the window and I constantly hear people screaming in anguish from inside his house. I finally say "Thats it!" and kick in the doors of his house. I search everywhere but I can't find him or his gun. But in the basement are 5 women who have been kidnapped and raped. They are now free. The murderer has lost his place of refuge. Well - I never found the gun! So what! I never found him either. Does that mean he never existed?!?! Who cares that the most publicised reason for my kicking down his doors was that I didn't like having guns pointed at me. The result is the same - rescued victims and no more maniac on my block.
-
Other than obvious factual differences (ie Saddam was a president, not a drug dealer), what flaws do you see in my analogy?
(Police != USA) The police do not write the law, they enforce it. The laws are decided upon (indirectly) by the people who must obey it. The law is very clear on the powers that the police may exercise in pursuit of enforcement. Then, punishment is decided by a different area of the system. In your example, the police themselves have decided what the appropriate response is to the given transgression(s) (i.e. regime change). In addition, if the police are deemed to have exercised undue force or unjust means in the pursuit of enforcement, then the police can be themselves punished - and nobody has the ability to do that to the US. So your analogy is flawed. Eco
-
Go back a couple of months to when you first posted that link. My opinions haven't changed.
Terry O`Nolley wrote: Go back a couple of months to when you first posted that link. no thanks. -c ClickPic | ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
-
Daniel Ferguson wrote: The funny thing about this 'saving Iraqis' business is that I don't remember Bush & Blair saying "We have to go into Iraq to save the citizens and prevent saddam from killing them. Actually Saddam's civil rights violations were mentioned in the same documents as Saddam's WMD (the ones that existed before the war but since they haven't been found yet means (to certain gullible ferfs) they never existed). They were parallel and equal bullet items. While it is true that the media replayed the WMD bullet item way more often than the civil rights bullet item, civil rights were listed as reason. And even if one of Bush's reasons for overthrowing Saddam wasn't civil rights, how does that change anything? Let's say I have a neighbor on my block who has already shot and killed a dozen people. I keep seeing him sticking his guns out the window and I constantly hear people screaming in anguish from inside his house. I finally say "Thats it!" and kick in the doors of his house. I search everywhere but I can't find him or his gun. But in the basement are 5 women who have been kidnapped and raped. They are now free. The murderer has lost his place of refuge. Well - I never found the gun! So what! I never found him either. Does that mean he never existed?!?! Who cares that the most publicised reason for my kicking down his doors was that I didn't like having guns pointed at me. The result is the same - rescued victims and no more maniac on my block.
Terry O'Nolley wrote: civil rights were listed as reason So which country is next on the liberation list, and was its leader brought into power and supported by the CIA too? Of course you won't mind spending another few hundred billion dollars of tax money for that country too? "Brookings Institution fellows Lael Brainard and Michael O'Hanlon said in a Financial Times article this month that military and reconstruction costs could be from $300 billion to $450 billion." -USA Today Terry O'Nolley wrote: And even if one of Bush's reasons for overthrowing Saddam wasn't civil rights, how does that change anything? Because "the other reason" was a lie. Terry O'Nolley wrote: The result is the same - rescued victims and no more maniac on my block. And hey, the oil well in his backyard is just an added bonus!
« eikonoklastes »
-
Brian Gideon wrote: Since the start of the war approximately 450 US soldiers have died or about 2 per day. and how many Iraqis have died since the start of the war? this site says between 8000 and 10000 civilian deaths; apparently nobody cares how many Iraqi military deaths there have been. do the math. extrapolate to 23 years. *Edit* and remember. those 9000 iraqi civilian dead... we killed them, not Saddam */Edit* [anyone who votes this a 1 is objectively in favor of dead iraqi civilians] ClickPic | ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
>[anyone who votes this a 1 is objectively in favor of dead iraqi civilians] Sorry to laugh but :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: That is one of those "oh my god, has it come to this" laughs. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass South Africa Brian Welsch wrote: "blah blah blah, maybe a potato?" while translating my Afrikaans. Crikey! ain't life grand?
-
A Gallup poll[^] shows that Saddam may have executed 61,000 residents of Baghdad. In his 23 year reign that comes out to 7.2 executions per day and that only includes those from Baghdad. Since the start of the war approximately 450 US soldiers have died or about 2 per day. Based on this alone, does it justify the war?
In Rwanda, 800,000 people were exterminated in 100 days. Remember me what the international community did? If human rights violation is a case to wage war (and I would like it), then why is it limited to countries with natural resources? Because human rights aren't the core for an intervention.
Le temps se perd, "Si" n'existe pas Tous les remords n'y changeront rien Le temps se perd, "Si" n'existe pas Donc à présent le choix reste mien
-
(Police != USA) The police do not write the law, they enforce it. The laws are decided upon (indirectly) by the people who must obey it. The law is very clear on the powers that the police may exercise in pursuit of enforcement. Then, punishment is decided by a different area of the system. In your example, the police themselves have decided what the appropriate response is to the given transgression(s) (i.e. regime change). In addition, if the police are deemed to have exercised undue force or unjust means in the pursuit of enforcement, then the police can be themselves punished - and nobody has the ability to do that to the US. So your analogy is flawed. Eco
Eco Jones wrote: So your analogy is flawed. Wrong! The UN decided on Iraqi sanctions not the US. His analogy stands. Eco Jones wrote: the police can be themselves punished - and nobody has the ability to do that to the US. They have the ability, it's the will and courage that's lacking. All I've ever wanted was an honest week's pay for an honest day's work.
-
Eco Jones wrote: So your analogy is flawed. Wrong! The UN decided on Iraqi sanctions not the US. His analogy stands. Eco Jones wrote: the police can be themselves punished - and nobody has the ability to do that to the US. They have the ability, it's the will and courage that's lacking. All I've ever wanted was an honest week's pay for an honest day's work.
Mike Mullikin wrote: His analogy stands. Wrong! The USA decided to do a regime change, the action which was in question here. He was drawing an analogy using the USA as the police (which is false), not the UN (which would have been closer). But thanks for paying attention. Mike Mullikin wrote: They have the ability, it's the will and courage that's lacking. Yeah, sure. The US has already said it won't abide by the decisions of an international court. Eco
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: His analogy stands. Wrong! The USA decided to do a regime change, the action which was in question here. He was drawing an analogy using the USA as the police (which is false), not the UN (which would have been closer). But thanks for paying attention. Mike Mullikin wrote: They have the ability, it's the will and courage that's lacking. Yeah, sure. The US has already said it won't abide by the decisions of an international court. Eco
Eco Jones wrote: The USA decided to do a regime change, the action which was in question here. Ummmm.... no. Terry was responding in a thread based on Dave Huff's statement "And before the war there were 'reliable' UN estimates of 5000 dead Iraqi's per month due to the sanctions." But thanks for paying attention. Eco Jones wrote: The US has already said it won't abide by the decisions of an international court. That would be the lack of courage speaking. All I've ever wanted was an honest week's pay for an honest day's work.