[Warlock]

Originally posted by Pez


Explain please.

Meaning I've heard, and know a few ppl,...who's sole reason to avoid an armed conflict is "But civilians could be harmed." Yes that's a sad truth to warfare,.. but if we followed that ... ANY one could get away with ANY thing simply by pulled what Saddam has been known to pull and use innocent civillians as shields.

If Saddam has a nuke launch site,.. but piles 2 thousand civilians around it,... should we allow that to stop a bombing run on the target in order to insure it's not fired at the US, Kuwait, Israel, France or whoever ?  It's in a way like the 9-11,..when afterwards the "If this happens again" was discussed and it was announced the planes would be shotdown if needed,.. sometimes civilians are placed in harms way during a war but some may be sacrificed to insure safety of the greater.

But agian it's been announced repeatedly that every measure possible will be taken to not harm innocents. Several radio annouments and thousands of leaflets are directed civilians to basically stay home and away from military targets for their own safety.  Personally if you're working right beside a bunker during wartime ,.. you're asking to be injured/killed by bombing runs.

[Tiara]

Using CP's version of explaining stuff:

If ya sit on a chair it can break. Lets not sit in chairs!

This only applies to reaslly really fat people, or people with weak chairs

[Warlock]

Originally posted by Tiara


Why do you think Saddam allows them to be there?

And do you know what those reporters get paid?

Personally ... no amount of funds are enough for me to willing sit in a bomb target.

But then again .. it's a way to weed out our genepool (jk)

[Pez]

Originally posted by Warlock


Meaning I've heard, and know a few ppl,...who's sole reason to avoid an armed conflict is "But civilians could be harmed." Yes that's a sad truth to warfare,.. but if we followed that ... ANY one could get away with ANY thing simply by pulled what Saddam has been known to pull and use innocent civillians as shields.

If Saddam has a nuke launch site,.. but piles 2 thousand civilians around it,... should we allow that to stop a bombing run on the target in order to insure it's not fired at the US, Kuwait, Israel, France or whoever ?  It's in a way like the 9-11,..when afterwards the "If this happens again" was discussed and it was announced the planes would be shotdown if needed,.. sometimes civilians are placed in harms way during a war but some may be sacrificed to insure safety of the greater.

But agian it's been announced repeatedly that every measure possible will be taken to not harm innocents. Several radio annouments and thousands of leaflets are directed civilians to basically stay home and away from military targets for their own safety.  Personally if you're working right beside a bunker during wartime ,.. you're asking to be injured/killed by bombing runs.

I agree on many thing so say but it's easy to sit infront of a computerscreen and say these things. Think if your family was being sacrificed for a uncertain cause. But as always....the farther away (from your own country) the easier it's not to care about it/them.

[Warlock]

Originally posted by Pez


I agree on many thing so say but it's easy to sit infront of a computerscreen and say these things. Think if your family was being sacrificed for a uncertain cause. But as always....the farther away (from your own country) the easier it's not to care about it/them.

trust me I've had those thoughts. I know my father's one of those types that would rather die than allow a terrorist to use him as a bargaining tool. I'm the same way.

In all seriousness, if I was trapped within a targetting zone,..I would expected to die,...plain and simple.

But the point I was making above is that yes it's horrible that war often claims innocent lives,.. but it's a fact of life. All you can do is try to minimize that cost. Driving kills ppl,...we still drive. Drinking kills ppl....we still drink,...etc etc.

i'm not arguing wether or not it's a sad thing, just that we shouldn't attack Iraq solely because civilians could be hurt.

[Pez]

Originally posted by Warlock


trust me I've had those thoughts. I know my father's one of those types that would rather die than allow a terrorist to use him as a bargaining tool. I'm the same way.

In all seriousness, if I was trapped within a targetting zone,..I would expected to die,...plain and simple.

But the point I was making above is that yes it's horrible that war often claims innocent lives,.. but it's a fact of life. All you can do is try to minimize that cost. Driving kills ppl,...we still drive. Drinking kills ppl....we still drink,...etc etc.

i'm not arguing wether or not it's a sad thing, just that we shouldn't attack Iraq solely because civilians could be hurt.

Again I understand and agree in some degree of what you are saying but we are not talking about a terrorist attack here. And we are not talking about the human shields that Saddam has used. We are talking about millions of people in Iraq who just wants peace but still get killed. I can't see how anyone could justify that.

[CP5670]

If ya sit on a chair it can break. Lets not sit in chairs!

This only applies to reaslly really fat people, or people with weak chairs

Okay but you are putting pressure on the chairs nevertheless; still unfair to them. It's a violation of chair rights. One of these days there will be a Chairs for the Ethical Treatment of Chairs, and then you will be sorry.

I agree on many thing so say but it's easy to sit infront of a computerscreen and say these things. Think if your family was being sacrificed for a uncertain cause. But as always....the farther away (from your own country) the easier it's not to care about it/them.

But that brings up exactly the same problem; aren't these people just as biased in their opinions as we are precisely due to this experience they have?

Again I understand and agree in some degree of what you are saying but we are not talking about a terrorist attack here. And we are not talking about the human shields that Saddam has used. We are talking about millions of people in Iraq who just wants peace but still get killed. I can't see how anyone could justify that.

Simple enough; this is essentially an American operation. Any national government in the world only cares about the people of other nations as they contribute to the well-being of its nation only; these governments exist only to do good for their own people, not those of other countries. So from the US government's point of view, this is only important as far as these people will assist the US's objectives.

Regardless of that though, I don't really see how "millions" of Iraqis would die; even in the worst scenarios, the projected casualties are not nearly that high.

oh, and I already gave the "justification" for all of this; a Shivan told Bush to do so in a dream. End of story.

[Pez]

Originally posted by CP5670

Okay but you are putting pressure on the chairs nevertheless; still unfair to them. It's a violation of chair rights.




But that brings up exactly the same problem; aren't these people just as biased in their opinions as we are precisely due to this experience they have?

Just because I haven't experieced a situation doesn't mean that I can't try to put me in that situation. I haven't had bombs flying over my head but I'm damn sure it's not a nice thing.

Simple enough; this is essentially an American operation. Any national government in the world only cares about the people of other nations as they contribute to the well-being of its nation only; these governments exist only to do good for their own people, not those of other countries. So from the US government's point of view, this is only important as far as these people will assist the US's objectives.

Absolutly correct. A goverment should take care of their own people. But still, that doesn't justify to kill innocent people of another country just to protect your own.

Regardless of that though, I don't really see how "millions" of Iraqis would die; even in the worst scenarios, the projected casualties are not nearly that high.

Oh that million thing was my fault.....what I ment was that millions of iraqis want peace....I didn't mean that millions would get killed....my bad.

[CP5670]

Just because I haven't experieced a situation doesn't mean that I can't try to put me in that situation. I haven't had bombs flying over my head but I'm damn sure it's not a nice thing.

Yes, but my point is that experiencing a situation first-hand does not necessarily help in drawing deductions from it, especially for things like this that play on emotions. Thinking from these people's point of view will give you an individual person's perspective as far as it affects that person only, but we are more interested in the larger picture here, since a war (and all international politics, really) is essentially a conflict between institutions in which the individuals are only meaningful as they contribute to the larger whole.

Absolutly correct. A goverment should take care of their own people. But still, that doesn't justify to kill innocent people of another country just to protect your own.

Actually yes it does, that is, if they do not contribute to the nation otherwise in any way and there is something to be gained for the nation in eliminating them. That is simply the way the system of competing states works (and as long as there is more than one, the competition exists).

besides, remember, shivans talking in dreams justify anything in the universe.

Oh that million thing was my fault.....what I ment was that millions of iraqis want peace....I didn't mean that millions would get killed....my bad.

Ah I see now. I think everyone in the world wants peace; it is just that everyone wants to rule the world in that period of peace as well, so it can also be said that nobody wants peace. It is just a matter of what kind of peace it is.

[Pez]

Originally posted by CP5670
Actually yes it does, that is, if they do not contribute to the nation otherwise in any way and there is something to be gained for the nation in eliminating them. That is simply the way the system of competing states works (and as long as there is more than one, the competition exists).

This thing might work in theory but if you apply it to the real world is also it also work but from my point of view you can't justify it in some examples.

If you follow the "there is something to be gained for the nation in eliminating them". Some examples.

"A nation should kill all the citizens who doesn't pay taxes."
Right or wrong?

"Nazi-Germany did the right thing to kill the jews because the the Nazis thought that they were pollution the economysystem"
Right or wrong?

The thing is that exactly the statement you wrote above is why people around the world are really pissed of at the USA. Sure, the USA are the greatest military power today but we also live in the 21th century. These things that USA does today may have worked 200 years ago and many countries have done it (ex, China, Russia, UK Germany, France etc etc.) but I believe and hope that we have learned fron history that war is not the solution to the problem. But the sad thing is that nutcases like Hitler, Saddam and Bush will keep making this world an unsafe world.

Ah I see now. I think everyone in the world wants peace; it is just that everyone wants to rule the world in that period of peace as well, so it can also be said that nobody wants peace. It is just a matter of what kind of peace it is.

[/B]

Yes, I do believe every human being wants peace. The sad thing is that the ones who rule doesn't always want peace.

Gotta go to bed now, but it's been nice talking to you all. It's nice to see people discuss senitive matters without it turning to a flame war.

[Warlock]

Originally posted by Pez


This thing might work in theory but if you apply it to the real world is also it also work but from my point of view you can't justify it in some examples.

If you follow the "there is something to be gained for the nation in eliminating them". Some examples.

"A nation should kill all the citizens who doesn't pay taxes."
Right or wrong?

"Nazi-Germany did the right thing to kill the jews because the the Nazis thought that they were pollution the economysystem"
Right or wrong?

and how do either of those apply here ?

The thing is that exactly the statement you wrote above is why people around the world are really pissed of at the USA. Sure, the USA are the greatest military power today but we also live in the 21th century. These things that USA does today may have worked 200 years ago and many countries have done it (ex, China, Russia, UK Germany, France etc etc.) but I believe and hope that we have learned fron history that war is not the solution to the problem. But the sad thing is that nutcases like Hitler, Saddam and Bush will keep making this world an unsafe world.
 

You throw Bush in with Saddam and hitler because Bush is trying to remove Saddam ? ?
Hmmm
Saddam and Hitler did wtf they wanted when they wanted, regardless of opinions

Bush Tried repeatedly to find a peaceful way to handle this, but isn't being a chick**** and has the balls to back up the words.

Seriously guy ,.. where are you coming up with all this ? Christ wtf do you want us to do ?

"Oh Saddam... don't you worry about those 12 UN resolutions ok? I know you failed to prove a damned thing... but we don't want to attack since it's just not nice,..."


Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnyways ,.. i'm going to go have a smoke now

[CP5670]

"A nation should kill all the citizens who doesn't pay taxes."
Right or wrong?

Depends on what other benefits they provide, and what the benefits/cost of killing them is. If these nonpayers are very small segment of the entire population or you only kill off a small portion of them, you can probably be fine with that, since it might make the rest of them start paying up. However, if they comprise a significant part of the people, you obviously cannot kill all of them without doing serious damage to the national economy. This there is also the issue of popular support; you will need to publicize the incidents to convince others to start paying, but depending on the common social culture, it may not go well with the people.

"Nazi-Germany did the right thing to kill the jews because the the Nazis thought that they were pollution the economysystem"
Right or wrong?

This particular one actually stems from a strange assumption, that the Jews would "pollute" the economy. They would obviously contribute to it just as much as anyone else would, since the fact that they are Jews is not really going to have any effect on their economic importance. So it was wrong for Germany, but only because they could have practically benefitted otherwise (assuming that is what they wanted ).

The thing is that exactly the statement you wrote above is why people around the world are really pissed of at the USA. Sure, the USA are the greatest military power today but we also live in the 21th century. These things that USA does today may have worked 200 years ago and many countries have done it (ex, China, Russia, UK Germany, France etc etc.) but I believe and hope that we have learned fron history that war is not the solution to the problem. But the sad thing is that nutcases like Hitler, Saddam and Bush will keep making this world an unsafe world.

It has nothing to do with the US here actually or this particular period of time; this method is quite inherent in the operation of the state itself, and really for that matter, any such competing parties in the universe. This system has been in effect since the first civilizations started and will go on for as long as independent nations exist at all, and those who "learn from history" are simply going to become more vulnerable to those who do not.

Besides, the Europeans for one have a long history of absolutely brilliant geopolitical maneuvering, and I think it very unlikely that they will all of a sudden have become incompetent; I bet what is really happening here is that they are simply continuing this tradition of genius, disguising their real goals (mentioned earlier in this thread) under high moral principles to gain popular support for their causes.

[Pez]

Originally posted by Warlock


and how do either of those apply here ?

Just read what CP wrote "there is something to be gained for the nation in eliminating them". If you eleminate a non-taxpayer you gain more money. Therefor it's in the nations interest to eleminate them if you follow that reasoning.

You throw Bush in with Saddam and hitler because Bush is trying to remove Saddam ? ?
Hmmm
Saddam and Hitler did wtf they wanted when they wanted, regardless of opinions

Bush Tried repeatedly to find a peaceful way to handle this, but isn't being a chick**** and has the balls to back up the words.

Ah....I knew that it would upset someone....but that wasn't my attention. Here is the thing: Bush, Hitler and Saddam all have invaded other countries. This is a violation of international law.

Seriously guy ,.. where are you coming up with all this ? Christ wtf do you want us to do ?

"Oh Saddam... don't you worry about those 12 UN resolutions ok? I know you failed to prove a damned thing... but we don't want to attack since it's just not nice,..."

Why are people always taking these things so damn personal. Cool down. I'm not criticizing you! I'm criticizing your goverment!

Oh and by the way. Where did you find the rule to invade a country just because they don't follow the UN resolutions.

[Pez]

Originally posted by CP5670 [/B]
It has nothing to do with the US here actually or this particular period of time; this method is quite inherent in the operation of the state itself, and really for that matter, any such competing parties in the universe. This system has been in effect since the first civilizations started and will go on for as long as independent nations exist at all, and those who "learn from history" are simply going to become more vulnerable to those who do not.
 [/B]

Actually if you have read some political science (which it seems that you have) you should know that the nationstate is a pretty young phenomenon who didn't start with the birth of civilizations.

Anyway....now I really gotta go to bed....see you all.

[Warlock]

Originally posted by Pez


Ah....I knew that it would upset someone....but that wasn't my attention. Here is the thing: Bush, Hitler and Saddam all have invaded other countries. This is a violation of international law.

Hmmm they weren't the only ones ya know

Cool down. I'm not criticizing you! I'm criticizing your goverment!
[/b]

Exactly. MY Country, thus I stand up for it when I feel the need to.  Yea it's far from perfect, and there's quite a few things I'll happily join with you in *****ing about ,....but other things I'll stand up against. Not every American feels this way, then again not every American is willing to put there lives on the line for the country, I other am/was on both counts. Hopefully this will help you understand why to a point I'll take things personal.

Oh and by the way. Where did you find the rule to invade a country just because they don't follow the UN resolutions. [/B]

Hmmm well;
They fought us 12 years ago
They lost
They were directed to disarm
They didn't
Thus ,.. we're back to force the issue.

These things happen. It's not a Rule or a law in the UN.  Just like after Germany was defeated in WW2 they weren't allowed to create a military force for a time. Same with Japan if I recall,..could be wrong. The other method to handle it would have been total and complete destruction of an enemy. Would you prefer that ? Peace is a nice concept,...but without force to insure it you will never have peace in any form at all.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by CP5670
One of these days there will be a Chairs for the Ethical Treatment of Chairs, and then you will be sorry.

Yeah, but wait until they try to decide who the chairman will be. Or how many chairs will be on the board.


Or heck, imagine the discussion about whether to be a money-making organization, or a non-profit chairity!

[Warlock]

[Bobboau]

"Why are people always taking these things so damn personal. Cool down. I'm not criticizing you! I'm criticizing your goverment!"

you know I was going to make a point that if someone talks smack about you're government (or it's leaders), and you generaly suport them, you will tend to take it personaly wether you had anyhting to do with it or not,
but as I can not find anything realy bad of the same nature as a major military action involveing Sweden I don't think I will be able to,
the absolute worst I could find was some eugenics stuf around the earlyer part of this century, the fact that this is the _absolute_ worst I could find is a testomont to you're contry, and it's people.
though I didn't look that hard






now doesn't that make you feel good

[Bobboau]

anyway...
rumors that Sadam is dead, and the Iraqi army is in negotiations to surrender
wouldn't this be great, I think this would be the absolute best posable outcome of this situation
we kill Sadam and anyone who might be able to fill the power vacume, they surender, the world helps them rebuild into a democracy
ah, alas, the pink dragon seems ever more likely

in other news 1024 people have been arested in San Fransico peace riots

[Bobboau]

this was a lot more active when it was fifteen diferent topics
and weve captured the city of Umm Qasr