Home | Community | Message Board

Magic Mushrooms Zamnesia
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: MagicBag.co Certified Organic All-In-One Grow Bags by Magic Bag   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   North Spore Bulk Substrate   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: For In(di)go [Re: GazzBut]
    #1496379 - 04/26/03 04:51 PM (20 years, 11 months ago)

GazzBut writes:

I took this to mean that in your considered opinion the motives of Bush and his buddies are irrelevant as long as the Iraqi people can be seen to benefit from it.

No. Nowhere in that original response do you see me say that because the Iraqi people benefitted, it was therefore a good thing to do. All I said was that regardless of what the motives were for taking the action the outcome remains the same -- Hussein has been deposed. We can debate whether or not deposing Hussein was a "good" thing or a "bad" thing, but that doesn't alter the fact that the motivations for deposing Hussein can logically not play a part in that determination.

This means you are not interested in whether the US acted out of a desire to make the American people safer and to also liberate the Iraqi people or whether they acted to gain control over the second largest oil reserve in the world and try and impose their brand of democracy onto the Iraqis.

Incorrect. All I point out (correctly) is that it makes no difference either way. As it turns out, I am interested in the reasoning behind taking the action, but purely out of curiosity -- it is irrelevant to my determination of the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the action.

I am not denying regardless of motivation the Iraqi people may enjoy certain benefits but I for one would like to know if this war has been "sold" to the people honestly or whether the true motives have been supressed.

But even if you ever do manage to find out the "real" motives, your opinion of the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the war will remain unchanged.

In this sense motives are in no way irrelevant. Not only because it gives an indication of future actions but also because it tells us whether we have been cynically and systematically lied to.

Again, future actions are completely irrelevant to the discussion here. Why are you incapable of understanding this? You have no idea what the US government intends to do next. You have no idea if Bush and his cronies will even be running the show in the US a year and a half from now. In actual fact, you have no idea if their motivations were any different from those they expressed -- merely your "gut feel".

As for being "cynically and systematically lied to", how do you choose to determine whether or not the administration was lying about their motivations? Through ESP?

In WWII and GW1 we were not the agressors. If we are openly attacked or are truly in danger of an impending attack then we must defend ourselves. This doesnt mean I agree with war its just a sad fact of life. We have started this current war, regardless of justifications, we are the agressors in this specific conflict. We didnt have to go to war. We could have definitely found a peaceful way to control the supposed threat of WMDs from Iraq.

Ah, now I see. So when you said "If the best we can come up with to achive peace is death and destruction then I dont think we are behaving very intelligently," you were not speaking in general principles, you were limiting your comment specifically to this war and none other. How was I supposed to know that?

Why do you have this compulsion to speak for other people? I said even if the motives were "good" I thought a war would be the wrong way to achieve those aims. I did not say that these motives were irrelevant to me.

In other words, just as I said -- to you, motivation is irrelevant in determining whether the war was "right" or "wrong". No matter what motivation Bush and Blair trotted out, you would still have opposed the war -- you would still have considered the war to be "wrong". So why are we still arguing?

Well firstly I would never have imposed the sanctions regime.

Nor would I have done. I would have marched into Baghdad in 1991 and arrested Hussein. Too bad this wasn't done, but it wasn't, so other methods needed to be used.

It attacked those we supposedly wished to defend and it didnt really have a massive impact on those who we wished it attack. It did however provide a good interim way of exerting control over the Iraqi oil supply until such time as we could do it in a more "hands on fashion."

And what, pray tell, is more "hands on" than the events we have witnessed in the last month or so?

I know your posistion on sanctions is that Saddam brought them upon himself and could have stopped them at anytime by abiding fully with the surrender agreement.

It's not just a position, it's unassailable fact, but let's continue...

You do realise that this posisiton is based on our motives for imposing sanctions not on whether the results are benficial or not?

The motive for imposing sanctions was to get Hussein to live up to the terms of the conditional surrender agreement. Please explain to us why it was a bad thing to try to persuade him to do so through non-military (though ineffective) means first rather than immediately going back across Iraq's borders.

Isnt this the exact opposite posisiton to the one you have been arguing?

Nope.

Going by your logic our motives should be irrelevant and we should judge this by the result.

No. You still haven't grasped the non-correlation of motivation and results versus "rightness" or "wrongness" of an action. Re-read my previous comments on this.

Net result was around 1/2 million Iraqi children died as a direct resullt of the sanctions we imposed.

Incorrect. See the recent threads in which I use the UNICEF surveys themselves to show this is an imaginary number completely unsupported by factual study. And as always, any deaths that were the result of the sanctions (whatever that number may be) can be laid at the feet of Hussein.

How do you judge this result?

How do I judge the result? I judge the sanctions were a total failure and a complete waste of time. I have said from the beginning that sanctions were a bad idea, and I repeat it now. The UN thought they were a good idea, but the UN thinks a lot of useless crap is a good idea. Don't try to say that I am trying to defend the imposition of sanctions on the basis of motivation or any other factor, because I have always said they were a bad idea -- even back in 1991 I was saying this. This still does not change the fact that there would have been no sanctions had Hussein behaved himself. The sanctions, bad as they were, useless as they were, still resulted directly from Hussein's intransigence.

Anyway, I dont profess to know exactly how Saddam could have been removed peacefully but I hardly think the fact that I dont know how proves its not possible.

Don't feel bad. No one else has ever come up with a realistic plan to remove him peacefully either. I mean no one -- not the UN, not France or Germany or Russia, not the protesters. No one. That's not because everyone in the world is an idiot, it's because there was no way to remove him peacefully. There wasn't even a peaceful way to get him to honor the conditions of the surrender agreement.

Whats done is done but perhaps we should be looking at more peaceful ways of dealing with the world in future.

That's a pipe dream. There will always be thugs who seize control of various countries and refuse to deal with others on a peaceful basis.

The bit where you arrogantly dismiss the thoughts of probably one of the most intelligent minds to have ever lived.

Einstein was a brilliant mathematician. This does not make him a brilliant political theorist. For a prime example of this in the modern day world, look at Noam Chomsky, the brilliant linguist.

I understand that force is sometimes neccesary. That is not what we have been discussing though. I am not even taking a posistion here all I am doing is simply applying the sentiment you attach to all your posts which states:
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"All systems which reduce, restrict, impinge upon, or eliminate freedom in any way are systems which work against life itself."
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Understand? I am taking your posistion and you are arguing against it!


No, I am not.

Now applying your posistion literally the system which reduced, restricted and impinged your freedom would by definition be working against life itself.

And again, I point out that you are ignoring context. War is an emergency situation, not the normal state of human existence. Emergency situations by definition are those in which the normal means of human survival are impossible. They are temporary and to be resolved as quickly as possible so that normal human societal systems may be resumed. Humans cannot exist for long in a continual state of emergency.

Note that the sytem which I have always advocated on this board, Laissez-faire Capitalism, treats war as an emergency, one that is to be ended as quickly as possible. War is not an integral and essential part of the Laissez-faire Capitalist system -- it is anathema to a Capitalist. But even laissez-faire Capitalism recognizes that there may be times in which it is necessary to go to war.

Was this war necessary? As I have said at least a dozen times here, I remain unconvinced that it was necessary for the United States or England or Australia or Spain etc. to involve themselves in this war. That in no way invalidates any part of my signature line.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: For In(di)go [Re: Phred]
    #1497265 - 04/27/03 01:51 AM (20 years, 11 months ago)

The motive for imposing sanctions was to get Hussein to live up to the terms of the conditional surrender agreement.

There appear to be no WMD in Iraq pinky. Your argument may have flown when Bush was still insisting "We are in mortal danger from WMD" but not anymore.

What evidence do you have Iraq didn't live up to the terms of it's agreement?

See the recent threads in which I use the UNICEF surveys themselves to show this is an imaginary number completely unsupported by factual study. Einstein was a brilliant mathematician. This does not make him a brilliant political theoristFor a prime example of this in the modern day world, look at Noam Chomsky, the brilliant linguist.


Not content to show that you know better than Einsten, you also believe you know better than Comsky, the UN head of the oil for food programme and the UN humanitarian aid coordinator for Iraq.

You should be a figure on the world stage if even half of what you spout is to be believed. Why are you reduced to writing on a shroom board?



--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 23 days
Re: For In(di)go [Re: Phred]
    #1497368 - 04/27/03 03:42 AM (20 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

took this to mean that in your considered opinion the motives of Bush and his buddies are irrelevant as long as the Iraqi people can be seen to benefit from it.

No. Nowhere in that original response do you see me say that because the Iraqi people benefitted, it was therefore a good thing to do.




But you also said...

Quote:

You think that intent is irrelevant as long as the results can be dressed in a favourable light?

As long as the end result is beneficial, sure.




Would you mind explaining how these two statements tally?

Quote:

Again, future actions are completely irrelevant to the discussion here. Why are you incapable of understanding this?




Once again, no they are not. You think motives are irrelevant. I disagree, one of the reasons I believe this is because a person motives give you an idea of future action. Simple as that.

Quote:

But even if you ever do manage to find out the "real" motives, your opinion of the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the war will remain unchanged.





We were discussing whether motives are irrelevant not the rights and wrongs of the war. I mentioned my personal opinion on the war in passing. I wish I hadnt now.

Quote:

As for being "cynically and systematically lied to", how do you choose to determine whether or not the administration was lying about their motivations? Through ESP?





ESP? Why resort to those measures when the lies of the US and UK governments were exposed with the shoddy information they tried to pass off as fact in the lead up to the war.

Quote:

Isnt this the exact opposite posisiton to the one you have been arguing?

Nope.






I think you will find it is. You have said motives are irrelevant as long as the result is beneficial. So going by that I would take it that if the results are bad then motives are still irrelevant. You have agreed sanctions didnt work, you dont seem to bothered by the deaths that they caused but im sure you wouldnt see this as a positive factor.
However you are now taking the opposite stance where our motivation for sanctions justifies the end result.

There can be no dount that sanctions had a negative effect on the Iraqi people. To justify this by saying its Saddams fault is puerile. Saddam gassed his people, we killed them thru sanctions. Once again Pinky two wrongs do not make a rtight. People have believed this for millennia blah! blah! blah! so it must be true...
I am talking about acting in a respectful and aware fashion to our fellow human beings. You are using petty and facile arguements to justify murder.




Quote:

Ah, now I see. So when you said "If the best we can come up with to achive peace is death and destruction then I dont think we are behaving very intelligently," you were not speaking in general principles, you were limiting your comment specifically to this war and none other. How was I supposed to know that?





A modicum of effort is all that is required. IN WWII and GWI we were not acting in the role of aggressors. In this war we were the agressors. If the best we can come up with is behaving in this way I dont think it shows much intelligence.
However, If we are defending ourselves it is because we have been left no other option. If Canada invaded the US I would have no problem with the US defending themselves...

Quote:

And what, pray tell, is more "hands on" than the events we have witnessed in the last month or so?




errr thats what I was referring to. think you need to catch up on some sleep old boy!

Quote:

It's not just a position, it's unassailable fact, but let's continue...






Did Saddams actions mean that sanctions absolutely had to be imposed? I am talking about a causal link here. For example if I jump in a river I will get wet.
Obvioulsly there is no true causal link between Saddams actions and the imposistion of sanctions. Saddam did some bad things, we did some bad things and used Saddams actions to justify them. WE IMPOSED SANCTIONS NOT SADDAM.
We must take responsibility for our actions. No truly compassionate person would impose sanctions what ever the reason.
It is like punishing the friends and family of a criminal. Obviuosly that is inhumane and we wouldnt do it but we will happily do it to an entire country.

Quote:

Net result was around 1/2 million Iraqi children died as a direct resullt of the sanctions we imposed.

Incorrect. See the recent threads in which I use the UNICEF surveys themselves to show this is an imaginary number completely unsupported by factual study. And as always, any deaths that were the result of the sanctions (whatever that number may be) can be laid at the feet of Hussein.








Ok lets say we only killed 10,000 children. Does tjhat make it ok?

Quote:

The motive for imposing sanctions was to get Hussein to live up to the terms of the conditional surrender agreement. Please explain to us why it was a bad thing to try to persuade him to do so through non-military (though ineffective) means first rather than immediately going back across Iraq's borders.





Nice attempt at pushing me into an either/or posistion. Why impose sanctions, why cross the border?

Quote:

That's a pipe dream. There will always be thugs who seize control of various countries and refuse to deal with others on a peaceful basis.




I dont beleive the mindset of Bush and his ilk will survive for ever.

Quote:

And again, I point out that you are ignoring context.




The reason dear pinky, that I am ignoring contect is because your sig tells me to.

The keywords are "All systems" and "restrict in anyway." That doesnt leave much room for context. I assume you have composed this quote yourself and I do happen to agree with it. Sadly you dont!

This war wasnt an emergency and it wasnt neccesary.


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 23 days
Re: For In(di)go [Re: Xlea321]
    #1497373 - 04/27/03 03:44 AM (20 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

You should be a figure on the world stage if even half of what you spout is to be believed. Why are you reduced to writing on a shroom board?





The same thought has crossed my mind!  :grin:

I mean an intelligence that overshadows the thoughts of such great minds as Chomsky and Einstein is surely being wasted here... 


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: For In(di)go [Re: Phred]
    #1497384 - 04/27/03 04:00 AM (20 years, 11 months ago)

Incorrect. See the recent threads in which I use the UNICEF surveys themselves to show this is an imaginary number completely unsupported by factual study.

Around 4,500 children under the age of five are dying here every month from hunger and disease," - Philippe Heffinck, UNICEF Representative for Iraq.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: For In(di)go [Re: Xlea321]
    #1497506 - 04/27/03 08:48 AM (20 years, 10 months ago)

Alex123 writes:

There appear to be no WMD in Iraq pinky.

As you are well aware, Alex, the conditional surrender covered far more than merely the necessity for Hussein to destroy his WMD and provide credible and verifiable proof he had done so.

As UN resolution after UN resolution pointed out, Hussein had fulfilled exactly none of the conditions. Neither the UN nor France nor Germany nor anyone else has ever claimed he did, because he didn't.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: For In(di)go [Re: GazzBut]
    #1497580 - 04/27/03 09:44 AM (20 years, 10 months ago)

GazzBut writes:

Would you mind explaining how these two statements tally?

See my previous comments re: the Founding Fathers, the billionaire donating money to the homeless, the researcher developing a machine of benefit to mankind.

You think motives are irrelevant. I disagree, one of the reasons I believe this is because a person motives give you an idea of future action. Simple as that.

Motives are irrelevant to the "rightness" or "wrongness" of an action. You choose to ignore this and claim that motives are an indicator of the likelihood that the actor may act in a given way in the future. That may be, but it doesn't alter the fact that motives are irrelevant to the "rightness" or "wrongness" of an action.

We were discussing whether motives are irrelevant not the rights and wrongs of the war.

Irrelevant to what? Do you not understand the meaning of the word "context"? Are we not discussing the war?

You have said motives are irrelevant as long as the result is beneficial. So going by that I would take it that if the results are bad then motives are still irrelevant.

Correct.

However you are now taking the opposite stance where our motivation for sanctions justifies the end result.

Incorrect. What part of "I judge the sanctions were a total failure and a complete waste of time. I have said from the beginning that sanctions were a bad idea, and I repeat it now. The UN thought they were a good idea, but the UN thinks a lot of useless crap is a good idea. Don't try to say that I am trying to defend the imposition of sanctions on the basis of motivation or any other factor, because I have always said they were a bad idea -- even back in 1991 I was saying this," is unclear to you?

There can be no dount that sanctions had a negative effect on the Iraqi people.

There can be no doubt that many of Hussein's actions had a negative effect on the Iraqi people.

To justify this by saying its Saddams fault is puerile. Saddam gassed his people, we killed them thru sanctions. Once again Pinky two wrongs do not make a rtight.

How could he have gassed more of his own people (and it now appears he may not have gassed any at all) if the sanctions had persuaded him to fulfill the conditions of the surrender agreement? The sanctions didn't work, true, but many people honestly (albeit naively) thought they might work. They might have worked on a leader less intransigent than Hussein, for example.

And again, if Hussein had not invaded Kuwait, would sanctions have been imposed? Nope. Therefore the sanctions, like all the other hardships the Iraqis have had to endure since he seized power, were a direct result of Hussein's actions. Anyone who understands the concept of "cause and effect" should have no difficulty grasping this.

I am talking about acting in a respectful and aware fashion to our fellow human beings.

We agree it was very unfortunate that Hussein chose not to act in a respectful and aware fashion to our fellow human beings. Fortunately, he is no longer in a position to do much harm to our fellow human beings.

You are using petty and facile arguements to justify murder.

No I am not. I call you on this. Where have I justified murder?

Did Saddams actions mean that sanctions absolutely had to be imposed?

No. One reasonable alternative would have been to turn right back around, march into Baghdad, and arrest Hussein. Too bad this wasn't done, but hey *shrugs* what do you expect from the UN?

I am talking about a causal link here.

So am I. Hussein invades Kuwait, sanctions are imposed to persuade him to smarten up. How much more cause and effect do you want?

Obvioulsly there is no true causal link between Saddams actions and the imposistion of sanctions.

Of course there is -- cause: Hussein invades Kuwait. Effect -- UN reacts to his invasion by imposing sanctions.

WE IMPOSED SANCTIONS NOT SADDAM.

The sanctions were not imposed out of capriciousness. It's not like one day out of the blue, the UN security council said, "We haven't done anything interesting for a while. Let's impose sanctions on Iraq." No matter how much you beat this dead horse, there is no way you can rationally claim that if Hussein had settled his dispute with Kuwait through OPEC mediation or other peaceful methods rather than conquering the country, sanctions would ever have been imposed.

Ok lets say we only killed 10,000 children. Does tjhat make it ok?

"We" didn't kill 10,000 children. Hussein did. If not for Hussein's actions, there would have been no sanctions.

Why impose sanctions, why cross the border?

To persuade Hussein to honor the terms of the conditional agreement.

The reason dear pinky, that I am ignoring contect is because your sig tells me to.

The sig assumes people have the intelligence to think contextually.

The keywords are "All systems" and "restrict in anyway." That doesnt leave much room for context. I assume you have composed this quote yourself and I do happen to agree with it. Sadly you dont!

I didn't compose the quote. I found it on some Libertarian website. It is unfortunate you are unable to think through the implications of the word "system", but hey *shrugs* whaddya gonna do?

This war wasnt an emergency and it wasnt neccesary.

Life during wartime fits to a "T" the definition of emergency. That is not open to debate. We may, however, debate whether or not the war was necessary. As I have stated countless times, I remain unconvinced that it was necessary at this time for the US and England and Australia and Spain and all to involve themselves in a war in Iraq. Those countries had no obligation to place their citizens at risk -- they could easily have followed the example of the rest of the world and allowed Hussein to continue murdering Iraqis indefinitely.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: For In(di)go [Re: Phred]
    #1497632 - 04/27/03 10:12 AM (20 years, 10 months ago)

As you are well aware, Alex, the conditional surrender covered far more than merely the necessity for Hussein to destroy his WMD and provide credible and verifiable proof he had done so.

Surely you arn't disputing that WMD were the main reason given for Iraq posing a "threat" and why it was neccessary to invade?

As UN resolution after UN resolution pointed out, Hussein had fulfilled exactly none of the conditions.

Well you've already made it clear you don't believe UN experts so why do you believe these resolutions?

And if he has no WMD then surely he fulfilled the conditions requesting he destroy WMD?



--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: For In(di)go [Re: Phred]
    #1497641 - 04/27/03 10:15 AM (20 years, 10 months ago)

And again, if Hussein had not invaded Kuwait, would sanctions have been imposed? Nope. Therefore the sanctions, like all the other hardships the Iraqis have had to endure since he seized power, were a direct result of Hussein's actions. Anyone who understands the concept of "cause and effect" should have no difficulty grasping this.

This perverse insistance that sanctions are somehow the "all the fault of saddam" reminds me of Hitlers reasoning for slaughtering the jews. "If they wern't in our country there would have been no need to kill them, it is their fault they are dying".

Nothing to do with the gas chambers of course...


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 23 days
Re: For In(di)go [Re: Phred]
    #1497876 - 04/27/03 12:07 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

See my previous comments re: the Founding Fathers, the billionaire donating money to the homeless, the researcher developing a machine of benefit to mankind.





Silly me but I thought we were talking about the war and you were using these examples to demonstrate why the motives for the war are irrelevant.

Quote:

Who cares what the motivation was? If they deposed Hussein because God spoke to them in a vision and told them it was the right thing to do, would that make any difference?





This is the original statement I disagreed with it. It comes in reply to my statement that the ideas of the PNAC point to different motivations for the war i.e securing US prosperity and promoting US global leadership than those that have been given as the official motivations.
We were not discussing right and wrong. I simply meant that the motivations are not irrelevant to gainig a fuller understanding of the political situation underlying this war.

Quote:

Irrelevant to what?




To you Pink. You are the one who said it didnt matter if they did it becasue god told them to. You said "who cares? "

Quote:

There can be no doubt that many of Hussein's actions had a negative effect on the Iraqi people.





back to two wrongs making a right again?

Quote:

Obvioulsly there is no true causal link between Saddams actions and the imposistion of sanctions.

Of course there is -- cause: Hussein invades Kuwait. Effect -- UN reacts to his invasion by imposing sanctions.





Well firstly you have disproved your own comment when you said

Quote:

No. One reasonable alternative would have been to turn right back around, march into Baghdad, and arrest Hussein. Too bad this wasn't done, but hey *shrugs* what do you expect from the UN?





If there is an alternative then there is not a true causal link between Saddams actions and the imposistion of sanctions.
I defined a true causal link, for the purpose of this debate, in my last post. Cause: I jump into a river Effect: I get wet. There is no alternative to this, if I jump in a river I will get wet everytime.
However, Saddams actions being the cause do not dictate that the effect has to be sanctions, can only be sanctions. Do you see what I mean?

Quote:

And again, if Hussein had not invaded Kuwait, would sanctions have been imposed?




Would he have invaded Kuwait with out the go ahead he got from April Gillespie a couple of weeks before the invasion?

Quote:

We agree it was very unfortunate that Hussein chose not to act in a respectful and aware fashion to our fellow human beings. Fortunately, he is no longer in a position to do much harm to our fellow human beings.





It is also a shame that the west hasnt acted towards the Iraqi people in a respectful and aware fashion.

Quote:

No I am not. I call you on this. Where have I justified murder?




You may not agree with sanctions but you dont think their use is neccesarily a bad thing. Any action that leads to the death of innocent people is murder to my mind. Defending sanctions in any way shape or form is justifying murder.

Quote:

Life during wartime fits to a "T" the definition of emergency. That is not open to debate.




I agree. But we didnt have to go to war...you have said yourself you werent convinced it was the right action. So we have created our own emergency.


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: For In(di)go [Re: GazzBut]
    #1498342 - 04/27/03 04:38 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

GazzBut writes:

Silly me but I thought we were talking about the war and you were using these examples to demonstrate why the motives for the war are irrelevant.

We were, and I did.

This is the original statement I disagreed with it. --

Quote:

Who cares what the motivation was? If they deposed Hussein because God spoke to them in a vision and told them it was the right thing to do, would that make any difference?




Yeah. So? Would it have made any difference at all to the outcome if God had told them to do it? Would it have made any difference to the people protesting the war? Would it have made any difference to the amount of money required to run the war? Would it have made any difference to the Iraqis who are now free to worship where they wish?

Please explain to us exactly how anything at all would have been any different if the motivation for going to war was inspired by God rather than _______________ (insert whatever you wish).

We were not discussing right and wrong.

Fine, if you wish not to discuss right or wrong, let's discuss outcomes. See above.

back to two wrongs making a right again?

That sword slices both ways. Was it not wrong to turn our heads and allow Hussein to continue murdering hundreds of thousands of people? And, in case you still haven't noticed, I repeat yet again that I agree that imposing sanctions was a bad idea. That doesn't change the fact that they wouldn't have been imposed had Hussein not acted as he did.

If there is an alternative then there is not a true causal link between Saddams actions and the imposistion of sanctions.

Incorrect. You demonstrate a faulty understanding of the concept of cause and effect. Just because a particular cause has the possibility of producing a variety of effects doesn't mean that the law of cause and effect is invalid.

Cause: Hussein conquers Iraq.

Possible effect number 1 -- UN imposes sanctions in retaliation

Possible effect number 2 -- Israel nukes Baghdad in retaliation

Possible effect number 3 -- UN coalition forces kick Hussein out of Iraq in retaliation.

So, even though one cause generates many potential effects, the reverse is not true. The effects would not have occurred without the single cause to trigger them. No matter how much you wiggle on this one, the fact remains that there would have been no sanctions had there never been a reason to impose them. Hussein is the one who created the reason, therefore Hussein bears the responsibility.

However, Saddams actions being the cause do not dictate that the effect has to be sanctions, can only be sanctions.

No, it didn't have to be sanctions. it could have been any one of a number of other responses. That still doesn't change the fact that if he hadn't invaded Kuwait, there would have been no response.

You may not agree with sanctions but you dont think their use is neccesarily a bad thing.

Incorrect. I think their use most certainly was a bad thing. There is no "necessarily" about it. How much plainer can I make myself on this point?

Any action that leads to the death of innocent people is murder to my mind.

So the actions of the Allies in invading Hitler's Europe were murder?

Defending sanctions in any way shape or form is justifying murder.

Then it's a good thing I have never defended the sanctions in any way, shape, or form.

But we didnt have to go to war...you have said yourself you werent convinced it was the right action.

But I might also be wrong. Maybe it was the right action. The majority of Americans certainly think it was, as do many, MANY Iraqis. Maybe they are right.

So we have created our own emergency.

There are emergencies, and then there are methods of ending emergencies. Certainly less Iraqi civilians were killed in this war than Hussein and his cronies killed every year in the ongoing emergency that once was called "life in Iraq under Hussein".

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: For In(di)go [Re: Phred]
    #1499450 - 04/27/03 11:40 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

Cause: Hussein conquers Iraq.

Possible effect number 1 -- UN imposes sanctions in retaliation

Possible effect number 2 -- Israel nukes Baghdad in retaliation

Possible effect number 3 -- UN coalition forces kick Hussein out of Iraq in retaliation.


Of course you miss the effect Saddam had already known from the last time he invaded a country.

Effect that had already happened in reality : US supports your invasion, sells you chemical weapons, gives you billions of dollars and does your military intelligence for you.

Hussein is the one who created the reason, therefore Hussein bears the responsibility

Don't be ludicrous. He had already invaded Iran and recieved enormous support from the US. You talk as tho invading a country automatically results in sanctions.

Then it's a good thing I have never defended the sanctions in any way, shape, or form.

What are you talking about? You've just defended imposing sanctions "because it was saddams fault"  :confused:

 


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: For In(di)go [Re: Xlea321]
    #1499618 - 04/28/03 12:30 AM (20 years, 10 months ago)

Alex123 writes:

What are you talking about? You've just defended imposing sanctions "because it was saddams fault"

Reading comprehension, Alex, reading comprehension.

I didn't defend imposing sanctions. I have never defended imposing sanctions. All I have said is that it is Hussein's fault that people who disagreed with my view of sanctions imposed them on Iraq. Regardless of my personal feelings towards sanctions, the fact remains that they would not have been imposed had he never conquered Kuwait. Making that observation in no way means that I defend sanctions.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 23 days
Re: For In(di)go [Re: Phred]
    #1499824 - 04/28/03 01:58 AM (20 years, 10 months ago)

Its been an intersting discussion Pink but I think we afe going round and round in circles right now.

PEACE


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 23 days
Re: For In(di)go [Re: Phred]
    #1500208 - 04/28/03 08:52 AM (20 years, 10 months ago)

BTW, I thought you might be interested in reading the fuller version of your signature line...

"Freedom is the basic concept and construct of life everywhere, because
freedom is the basic nature of God. All systems which reduce, restrict,
impinge upon, or eliminate freedom in any way are systems which work against
life itself.

"Freedom is not the goal of the human soul, but its very nature. By nature
the soul is free. Lack of freedom is, therefore, a violation of the very
nature of the soul. In truly enlightened societies, freedom is not
recognized as a right, but as a fact. It is something that is, rather than
something that is given.

Freedom is not granted, but rather, taken for granted." Friendship with God
by Neale Donald Walsch. Page 183"

I bet that dudes understanding of system aint the same as yours either! :grin:
 


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: For In(di)go [Re: GazzBut]
    #1500234 - 04/28/03 09:00 AM (20 years, 10 months ago)

Nope... it seems he understands it pretty well.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: For In(di)go [Re: Phred]
    #1500424 - 04/28/03 10:31 AM (20 years, 10 months ago)

All I have said is that it is Hussein's fault that people who disagreed with my view of sanctions imposed them on Iraq.

That sounds clear enough...

So you discount the possibility that the US and UK (who were the driving force behind imposing the sanctions) had any responsibility for the sanctions at all? It was all Saddams fault that we had punish the Iraqi people?

Pretty convoluted reasoning pink. Surely the people imposing the sanctions have at least some responsibility to the Iraqi people?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 23 days
Re: For In(di)go [Re: Xlea321]
    #1503563 - 04/29/03 06:19 AM (20 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

So you discount the possibility that the US and UK (who were the driving force behind imposing the sanctions) had any responsibility for the sanctions at all? It was all Saddams fault that we had punish the Iraqi people?





You would think so wouldnt you!


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSkikid16
fungus fan

Registered: 06/27/02
Posts: 5,666
Loc: In the middle of the nort...
Last seen: 18 years, 11 months
Re: For In(di)go [Re: Xlea321]
    #1504571 - 04/29/03 01:24 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Surely the people imposing the sanctions have at least some responsibility to the Iraqi people?


So if I'm an employer, and one of my employees is not meeting his job requirements, and I suspend his pay, then it is my fault that his kids starve? Is that British logic, or are you just special?


--------------------
Re-Defeat Bush in '04

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 23 days
Re: For In(di)go [Re: Skikid16]
    #1506687 - 04/30/03 02:17 AM (20 years, 10 months ago)

Try this British logic smart ass. You get arrested in the US for posting on the shroomery (probabaly wont be long before its a crime over there!) but instead of just punishing you they punish your entire family. Is that right?

The point is a massive amount of the goods that were sanctioned were not related to weapons building or anything like that. Sanctions were designed to keep a whole country down and they caused untold suffering. They also gave the US a way of exerting some control over the flow and price of oil from Iraq through the oil for food program.

BTW your analogy was a little weak as the guy in question could have got another job or could have turned to social security. It is highly unlikely that his children would have starved.

PEACE


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: MagicBag.co Certified Organic All-In-One Grow Bags by Magic Bag   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   North Spore Bulk Substrate   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Something's Rotten In England Ellis Dee 917 6 05/30/02 10:37 AM
by wingnutx
* Only in England.... Phred 1,025 17 03/27/04 08:50 PM
by Edame
* Legal sales of magic shrooms in England!! min 1,078 14 08/18/03 03:15 PM
by elbiochemica
* An experiment for the Democratic party
( 1 2 all )
rommstein2001 2,118 30 11/08/03 01:57 PM
by Evolving
* Direct Democracy: Interactive Experiment TheShroomHermit 826 11 08/16/03 07:43 PM
by TheShroomHermit
* coppers arpage23 487 2 06/12/02 01:34 AM
by Innvertigo
* Oh no he di'ent! retread 495 7 10/02/04 01:04 PM
by Phred
* Dis-Integration RonoS 650 6 03/01/03 09:54 AM
by carbonhoots

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
8,498 topic views. 0 members, 10 guests and 14 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.033 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 15 queries.