[Rictor]

Again, semantics. I was not reffering to the letter of the quote (in regards to international law), I was reffering to the meaning of it. Value of human like is codified in law, and its quite clear that taking several is a greater crime than taking one.

Also, you seem to think that you are not responsible for your actions. If you lived your entire life on a deserted Pacific island, you would not be held responsible for the actions of the United States government. However, you have paid taxes, and continue to do so (I assume, if not you've got bigger problems than debating politics), and have also as far as I know served in the military. You provide the means for the United States government to wage war, which is money, so you are responsible. Its similar to buying a man a gun, knowing that he has something of a history of misusing it. The next person he goes out and shoots, the blood is partly on your hands.



But, lets play it your way. How about something a little closer to home.

As a result of US military action, around ten thousand civilians die in Iraq. As a result of the actions of Osama bin Laden and al Queda, three thousand civilians die in the WTC attacks.

1) You condemn both al Queda and the US military equally, because you believe that American lives are of greater worth.

2) Condemn al Queda more strongly, because you believe that American lives are of greater worth.

3) Condemn the US military more strongly than al Queda, because you believe that all life is of equal worth.

4) Neither condemn nor support either faction, because you believe that all life is of equal worth.

5) Support both factions equally, because you believe that American lives are of greater worth.

6) Support the US military more strongly, becuase you believe that American lives are of greater worth.

7) Support al Queda more strongly becuase you believe that all life is of equal worth

8) Support both factions, because you just like to see people die, no matter who is doing it.

9) Condemn both factions, because you just despise killing and even one death is too many. Flipside)

which category do you fall in to I wonder?

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Rictor
Again, semantics. I was not reffering to the letter of the quote (in regards to international law), I was reffering to the meaning of it. Value of human like is codified in law, and its quite clear that taking several is a greater crime than taking one.

I'm still waiting.

Also, you seem to think that you are not responsible for your actions. If you lived your entire life on a deserted Pacific island, you would not be held responsible for the actions of the United States government. However, you have paid taxes, and continue to do so (I assume, if not you've got bigger problems than debating politics), and have also as far as I know served in the military. You provide the means for the United States government to wage war, which is money, so you are responsible. Its similar to buying a man a gun, knowing that he has something of a history of misusing it. The next person he goes out and shoots, the blood is partly on your hands.

I take responsibility for MY actions. I do not take responsibility for anyone else's. A terrorist might say "release this prisoner or we will kill our hostages!". I will not release the prisoner and that doens't make me responsible for the deaths of the hostages. That makes the terrorists responsible for the deaths of the hostages. Any other interpretation is madness.

But, lets play it your way. How about something a little closer to home.

As a result of US military action, around ten thousand civilians die in Iraq. As a result of the actions of Osama bin Laden and al Queda, three thousand civilians die in the WTC attacks.

This should be fun.

1) You condemn both al Queda and the US military equally, because you believe that American lives are of greater worth.

Yes.

2) Condemn al Queda more strongly, because you believe that American lives are of greater worth.

Yes.

3) Condemn the US military more strongly than al Queda, because you believe that all life is of equal worth.

Yes.

4) Neither condemn nor support either faction, because you believe that all life is of equal worth.

Yes.

5) Support both factions equally, because you believe that American lives are of greater worth.

Yes.

6) Support the US military more strongly, becuase you believe that American lives are of greater worth.

Yes.

7) Support al Queda more strongly becuase you believe that all life is of equal worth

Yes.

8) Support both factions, because you just like to see people die, no matter who is doing it.

Yes.

9) Condemn both factions, because you just despise killing and even one death is too many.

Yes.

which category do you fall in to I wonder?

Depends on how I feel at the EXACT moment you ask me the question and what factors I'm weighing at the EXACT moment you ask me the question.

Btw, you forgot these one:
10) Don't give a damn, because you don't care if people on the other side of the planet kill each other.

11) Don't give a damn, because you're busy trying to solve your problems at home before you attempt to solve problems somewhere else.

12) Just like to argue and willing to take any stance, depending on your mood.

13) Bitter, because Shrike says so, damnit, and he's always right (this has nothing to do with you, Rictor).

People aren't machines, and they are nondeterministic and they are very definately not simple.

[Grey Wolf]

You can't generalize anything either, Rictor. The world is not black and white. All you can hope for is to aim for the shade of grey that seems smartest at the time and hope for the best.

Also, what right have we to condemn anyone for their actions in the first place? What's that quote again? "Let those without sin cast the first stone"?

[adwight]

Originally posted by USS Alexander
That's true, although this could be offending to american people(and i don't mean it that way)lot's of you think your god and the only right way is the american way, a thing that will be causing lot's of problems for the US is the arrogance of their president, he thinks he's god and controls all, there's one statement that i won't forget he once said....if your not with us your against us. a thing he shouldn't have said. He thinks he's the most powerfull man of the world, the terrorist show it to him clearly that he's NOT.

And i don't know if the footage are true but if there are, then the most humiliated thing is the sexual abused iraqi prisoners by american soldiers. i find it personaly more humilating to be ***** in the ass al the time. i would rather be beheaded then that.

He is the most powerful man on the world...  Just look what he's the president of.

[Flipside]

Scary but True, did you know that an Anagram of George W **** is OWES BERG HUG.

The truth was that I was looking for some way to link him to Aliens, but when I ran the anagram creator, that's what popped up

It's terrible what happened, but I had to post that.

Edit : Oh, and it's BEGS HUGE ROW as well

[Grey Wolf]

Originally posted by adwight


He is the most powerful man on the world...  Just look what he's the president of.

A country that passed it's economic peak about 20 years ago?

[Bobboau]

Originally posted by Rictor


A man on the street is about to shoot child. If you do nothing, you implicity support the killing of the child. Especially, if you are the one who has bought the gun and given it to the man.

Inaction support whatever is already happening. Think intertia.

(I was just skimming and saw this... maybe you were being sacastic or something... )

so sounds like you've changed you mind and suported our overthroughing of Sadam.

[USS Alexander]

Originally posted by adwight


He is the most powerful man on the world...  Just look what he's the president of.

Exactly my point of the arrogance of most of the american people.

You people believe to be invinceble and that wil be your downfall.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Bobboau


(I was just skimming and saw this... maybe you were being sacastic or something... )

so sounds like you've changed you mind and suported our overthroughing of Sadam.

I've always supported overthrowing Saddam. I don't know why you would think otherwise.

condemn invasion != support Saddam

It just don't think it should have come at the expense of the Iraqi people, who have suffered enough. Now, maybe you're a great believer the in decency and kind-heartedness of the government, but I can't bring myself to believe that this (the invasion) was done for selfless ends.

the Nuremburg trials condemn the invasion of a sovereign nation as the greatest war crime in existance, and I would pretty much (though not totally) tend to agree.

It was, as was Afghanistan, done in order to establish a US military presence in the area, and specifically in the case of Iraq, to eliminate one of Israels long standing enemies. Kind of hard to claim otherwise when several of the architects of the war in Iraq have plainly stated that it is so (A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm). Though they never planned for the whole "exporting democracy" thing, the plan was to reinstall the old Hasshemite (sp?) monarchy, which could hardly be considered democratic.

Think about this. Whenever someone invades a country, the President and his crew are always the last to get it. He (Saddam) has billions in looted money with which to make an escape. Perhaps the US shouldn't have armed him and supported him, well after it became evident that he was a despot. Perhaps, when they already went ahead and killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqs in 91, they should have supported the rebellion ready to topple Saddam. There are a million ways to overthrow a government, particularly when you happen to be the US, which do not involve bombing, invasion, the siezure of oil resources, the setup of four (I think its four) permanent military bases, the handover of Iraq to the circling vultures of Halliburton & Co.

There is this great myth that the US must bring the flame of hope and freedom to the benighted, backwards people of the world. Ignoring for a second that in many cases, the US is directly responsible for their condition in the first place, the people can mange just fine - thanks.

edit:

that come out less clearly then I intended it to. Essentially, I support the overthrow of despotic regimes whereever they may be, but by legitimate means and by legitimate people. Thats the basic jist of it.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Rictor


I've always supported overthrowing Saddam. I don't know why you would think otherwise.

condemn invasion != support Saddam

If you don't support invading Iraq, then you support Saddam. That's the only two possibilities. Even if you don't support Saddam, by not supporting invasion, you passively support Saddam and that's the same thing.

You're responsible for every dead Kurd and tortured Iraqi because you didn't support invading Iraq.

[Stealth]

Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
A country that passed it's economic peak about 20 years ago?

No, a country with every aspect of its military the most powerful in the world.

don't even try to argue it. it's a fact, not an opinion

[Genryu]

Back to the might is right mentality, so I see.

[Janos]

Originally posted by mikhael


If you don't support invading Iraq, then you support Saddam. That's the only two possibilities. Even if you don't support Saddam, by not supporting invasion, you passively support Saddam and that's the same thing.

You're responsible for every dead Kurd and tortured Iraqi because you didn't support invading Iraq.

what the ****ing **** are you sprouting

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Janos
what the ****ing **** are you sprouting

He's paraphrasing the ****ing **** that Rictor sprouts all the time and using his own weapon against him.

Mik believes that there are shades of grey in the world but Rictor only believes in black or white. So I'm interested in hearing how he's going to explain this one away without refuting what he said earlier.

[Grey Wolf]

Originally posted by Stealth


No, a country with every aspect of its military the most powerful in the world.

don't even try to argue it. it's a fact, not an opinion

Never said yours was wrong. I was just stating fact. The US economy is, and has been, in a decline.

[Janos]

Originally posted by karajorma


He's paraphrasing the ****ing **** that Rictor sprouts all the time and using his own weapon against him.

Mik believes that there are shades of grey in the world but Rictor only believes in black or white. So I'm interested in hearing how he's going to explain this one away without refuting what he said earlier.

Huh. I got scared and thought we have a real lunatic. My sarcasm-o-meter was broke.
Grey is good. Grey is of the Path.

[Bobboau]

yes I am interested my self, as that was the exact point I too was trying to make.
just couldn't let such a hypocritical statement go by.

[Liberator]

Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
The US economy is, and has been, in a decline.

Have you even looked at recent numbers?  Jobs are up, market's are up.  The Clinton Recession is ending.

[Moonsword]

Originally posted by Flipside
...if the British troops have been acting in a similar manner, I will be far more digusted in them than I am even of the American soliders who tortured prisoners, since ours are supposed to be trained for these situations.

So are ours, Flipside.  At least they're supposed to be, particularly military police units.  If I remember correctly, the United States is not bound by the Geneva Convention, as we never signed it.  Also, non-uniformed troops are manifestly not protected.  Spies, for example, are executable, right there, no questions asked as far as international law is concerned.

I do not like what has happened.  This is merely a statement of facts.  While I approve, to a cautions extent, of the war itself, the way it has been conducted is appalling at times and just plain stupid at others.  There have been bungled decisions that have cost us and the Iraqi people a great deal.  This includes the stated reasons for going to war.  While I believe, in the long run, as do many Iraqis, that this conflict will benefit the Iraqi people by liberating them from Sadaam, the road to that day is going to be long, bloody, and hard, and the situation is not improving.

The concept of jus en bellum, justice in war, has usually been one that the US has tried to uphold.  We have stumbled, and we will again.  But we must struggle to uphold that ideal, for without it, how can we accomplish a thing?

Remeber this, however: war is bloody and hard.  It exacts a severe price on it's participants and is, in the end, dehumanizing and cruel.  As someone once stated, it is shocking how cruel man can be to his fellow man.

Let us also remember that debating whether or not we should have moved is a purely academic, historical debate.  The situation exists.  What is now of immediate concern is how best to deal with it to the benefit of all parties involved.  I am ashamed of the things that have happened at Abu Gharhaib, and appalled at the actions extremists who pervert the meaning of a noble faith to their own corrupt ends.  Let us end this fight, but end it to the benefit of all mankind.

[Moonsword]

Originally posted by Liberator


Have you even looked at recent numbers?  Jobs are up, market's are up.  The Clinton Recession is ending.

Assumption.  Unjustified and unproven.  A temporary climb in numbers is not a recovery, it is a sign of hope.  This does not necessarily mean you are wrong, however, simply a little presumptious in naming both cause and effect.