Home | Community | Message Board

MushroomCube.com
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: North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract, Kratom Powder For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,587
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 1 hour, 13 minutes
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2062316 - 11/01/03 04:12 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Do the ends justify the means when nothing is done?


--------------------
Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ
(•_•)
<) )~  ANTIFA
/ \
\(•_•)
( (>    SUPER
/ \
(•_•)
<) )>    SOLDIERS
  / \


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: monoamine]
    #2062352 - 11/01/03 06:10 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

For every Iraqi that I've seen that was in favor of regime change,there is another that is not.



Actually every poll shows the majority of Iraqi's being in favor of the regime change, Unless you can point out one I may have missed?


Quote:

Gee,they're so damn happy that they're launching RPG's at our tanks.



And how many are shooting compared to the total population?


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


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

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: monoamine]
    #2062356 - 11/01/03 06:24 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

monoamine writes:

My point is that we shouldn't meddle anywhere.

Anywhere? Such as Korea in 1950, Europe in 1945, the Pacific in 1944, Kuwait in 1991, Kosovo in the Nineties, Liberia in 2003? Fair enough.

If we want to help,we can send humanitarian aid,not soldiers and weapons.

Yep. Those Unicef workers and Red Cross folks and Amnesty International dudes were pretty effective at keeping Hussein from killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who got on his wrong side, weren't they?

And if it comes down to brass tacks,any troops should be mulitnational.

Why? What difference does it make where the troops are from?

It may have escaped your notice that there were troops from the UK, Australia, Spain, Italy and others who took part in the invasion. Is this not multinational?

What poles,conducted by whom and how exactly? Links?

Don't be lazy. Look them up yourself. Links have been posted here by others. There was a Yougov poll of Baghdad, a Gallup poll of Baghdad, and a poll (I think by Zogby but I wouldn't swear to it) of Basra, Mosul, Kirkuk, and one other area I can't remember.

A lot of schools and hospitals and not to mention many Iraqi's jobs and wages were rendered moot from the invasion.

There was no invasion in 1991, which is what I assume you are referring to. No schools or hospitals were bombed in 2003. There are more schools and hospitals functioning now than there were in February of this year, and teachers and other Iraqi government employees are now making 15 to 20 times the salaries they had in February. I honestly fail to see your point here.

Even if things are better now or the near future (questionable)...

How is it questionable? Tell me specifically how the life of Achmed Iraqi is worse now than it was a year ago.

...it may destabalize the region even more.

Destabilize how? How do you define "destabilize"? Syria and Iran and even Saudi Arabia are now acting much more cautiously than they were two years ago. You think that's a coincidence? Again, are you saying it is better for Iraqis to have "stability" maintained by the routine murder of those who irritate Hussein?

That's irrelevant to the worldwide consequences of this war.

And those are?

Again,if freeing the Iraqui people was thier main goal...

Who says it was their main goal? For that matter, who says there needs to be a main goal? There were multiple justifications for deposing Hussein. Why must we pick one (any one) and insist that it was more valid than all the rest?

why wasn't it there biggest selling point?

Why must there be a "biggest" selling point? See above. But to answer, maybe it was because Bush is not as good a salesman as Slick Willie would have been.

Again, the motivation for performing an action is not what determines whether an action is ethical or moral or good or whatever word you feel most comfortable with. Either it was right to invade or it was wrong. This is something that those who hold the curious view that it was wrong to invade because a majority didn't approve, but would have been right if a majority had approved, can't grasp. If it was wrong to invade Iraq, it was wrong whether 96 out of the 190 countries in the world (a majority) approved or 94 approved (a minority). Do you believe it is wrong to imprison someone for smoking dope or eating mushrooms? Is it wrong no matter what the law says and no matter how many Americans disagree with you?

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, 17 days
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2062357 - 11/01/03 06:29 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

infidelGOD writes:

when an individual defends another from an agressor, he is retaliating only against the agressor. but when we bomb Iraq to save the Iraqis, we are not only "retaliating" against Saddam and his thugs, we are also knowingly killing innocent civilians in the process.

So wars may only morally be fought with handheld weapons such as swords and cudgels? So much for the morality of the Allied liberation of Europe in 1945.

pinky


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: monoamine]
    #2062374 - 11/01/03 06:56 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

And if it comes down to brass tacks,any troops should be mulitnational.



Ah... an affirmative action army.


Quote:

We have an administration with a vested interest in keeping this war as positive looking as possible.



And that differes how from any previous administration?


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Phred]
    #2062377 - 11/01/03 07:07 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

So wars may only morally be fought with handheld weapons such as swords and cudgels?

um. no. where did you pull that out of?

So much for the morality of the Allied liberation of Europe in 1945.

lol. you really need to stop applying the "same standards" to everything regardless of context, because there are clearly different principles at work here. in your view, helping a woman getting attacked = saving Iraqis = liberating Europe. uh huh. in principle they're all the same right? that's some nuanced worldview you got there.

since you apparently didn't get it the last time I'll explain to you again the differences between WWII and our invasion of Iraq.

in WWII,

1. Nazi Germany declared war on us first and we "retaliated"
2. they were a direct threat to the United States
3. they were treaty allies with Japan
4. they had initiated force against other countries
5. we were asked to intervene

I don't endorse the bombing of civilian centers in WWII, but I believe our involvement in the war was justified because we were mainly acting in self-defense. and in case you are unaware of this, we never went into WWII for the purpose of liberating Europe, that was not the original intent, so it certainly wasn't a moral war. if that was the case, we would have intervened earlier, like when London was getting bombarded. remember that it took an actual attack on the US by the axis for us to finally get involved. we had been resisting involvement for years before that, even as Hitler was rampaging across Europe.

it's completely ridiculous to compare our involvement in WWII to the invasion of Iraq. they're two completely different situations. I'm sure even you recognize that.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2062381 - 11/01/03 07:16 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Do the ends justify the means when nothing is done?

what the heck is that supposed to mean?

did we actually try anything to help the Iraqis?
like maybe lifting the sanctions? or giving better support to domestic opposition? sure, Bush sr. encouraged them to revolt but when the time came, he abandoned them...

we did nothing for decades while he was murdering his people, we even supported Saddam in the 80's. we didn't give a fuck about the Iraqi people back then, did we?

but now, oh we gotta save the poor Iraqis! so let's invade!
I mean, if we really, genuinely cared about the plight of the Iraqi people, shouldn't a full-scale invasion be the last resort?


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

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2062401 - 11/01/03 07:59 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

infidelGOD writes:

um. no. where did you pull that out of?

Your objection to the Iraq war was that civilians would die by being too close too bomb blasts intended for targets other than themselves. It is not just bombs that go astray. So do artillery rounds, rockets, mortar rounds, RPGs grenades, bullets, arrows, crossbow bolts, javelins, boomerangs. The only kind of weaponry which doesn't is handheld weaponry -- swords and cudgels.

you really need to stop applying the "same standards" to everything regardless of context, because there are clearly different principles at work here.

No, there are not. The principle is the same. Either it is ethical to assist others in defending themselves or it is not. It makes no difference in principle if it is a single individual assisting another individual or a group of individuals assisting another group.

Nazi Germany declared war on us first and we "retaliated"

A declaration of war unaccompanied by an actual act of hostility is words, nothing more. Please provide for us an example of Germany attacking America.

they were a direct threat to the United States

No, they were not. Please explain to us how the Germans could cross the Atlantic and kill American citizens.

they were treaty allies with Japan

Irrelevant. More words, nothing more. Did they attack the US? Nope. Did they have the ability to attack the US? Nope. The US could have warred exclusively with Japan and never had to worry about a German invasion.

they had initiated force against other countries

And this makes them different from Iraq how?

we were asked to intervene

And this means the US had the obligation to intervene?

Asked by whom? Do you believe no Iraqis asked the US to intervene?

I don't endorse the bombing of civilian centers in WWII, but I believe our involvement in the war was justified because we were mainly acting in self-defense.

Clearly the US was not. There was no way Germany could have invaded the US. Self-defense had nothing to do with it.

and in case you are unaware of this, we never went into WWII for the purpose of liberating Europe, that was not the original intent, so it certainly wasn't a moral war.

I didn't say it wasn't correct to declare war on Germany. I asked if it was correct to invade Europe. Not the same thing at all.

it's completely ridiculous to compare our involvement in WWII to the invasion of Iraq.

No, it's not. If it was incorrect to liberate Iraq, why was it correct to liberate Europe?

they're two completely different situations.

No they are not. The only difference is that Europe was enslaved by a foreigner. Iraq was enslaved by an Iraqi.

pinky


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Phred]
    #2062451 - 11/01/03 09:48 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

um. no. where did you pull that out of?

Your objection to the Iraq war was that civilians would die by being too close too bomb blasts intended for targets other than themselves


you misundertood me. you said: "So wars may only morally be fought with handheld weapons such as swords and cudgels?". I never said using modern weapons was not justified. there are certainly exceptions (like self-defense) where this is acceptable. but you were saying that our invasion of Iraq was analogous to a man coming to the aid of a woman being attacked. I was merely pointing out that this is a flawed analogy because he isn't killing any innocent civilians in the process of helping her.

you really need to stop applying the "same standards" to everything regardless of context, because there are clearly different principles at work here.

No, there are not. The principle is the same. Either it is ethical to assist others in defending themselves or it is not. It makes no difference in principle if it is a single individual assisting another individual or a group of individuals assisting another group.


no the principle is not the same.

your analogy of the woman being attacked isn't really accurate, it leaves out a key piece of the moral equation. a better analogy would be this: lets say a woman is being attacked and you're about to intervene, but you know that in doing so you will be killing an innocent bystander. do you still have the right to intervene to save her? this is a more accurate portrayal of the situation than your simplistic morally clear scenario and this is the principle at play in the Iraq war. and as you can see, this presents a greater moral dilemma. I mean, of course we would have all supported the war if we could have removed Saddam Hussein without killing any innocent civilians. but the situation is much more complex than that. this isn't just about defending others. it's about sacrificing innocent people to defend others. I'm sure you see the difference here.

A declaration of war unaccompanied by an actual act of hostility is words, nothing more. Please provide for us an example of Germany attacking America.

a declaration of war means nothing?
are you saying that we were not justified in attacking Germany even though they declared war on us? even though their ally attacked us? ok then.

they were a direct threat to the United States

No, they were not. Please explain to us how the Germans could cross the Atlantic and kill American citizens.


yes they were a direct threat to the United States. read some history. German U-boats were operating just miles off the East coast. They had the most technologically advanced armed forces in the world at the time, they had a nuclear program, as well as chemical and bio weapons. they had ballistic missiles and jet powered cruise missiles (yes, in 1942), they had a much more advanced military than the Japanese who managed to attack us, so they were certainly capable of reaching us. and once they had conqured Europe, England, the Soviet Union, North Africa and the Middle East, you think maybe, just maybe they would have turned their attention to America? I mean, they were hellbent on world domination. I don't think they would have been content to conquer Europe and sit on their laurels. it would have been extremely naive and irresponsible for our leaders to think that. even though Germany didn't attack us directly, our involvement would have been a legitimate use of the pre-emptive use of force because they were a direct threat to the United States.

they had initiated force against other countries

And this makes them different from Iraq how?


well, I don't remember Iraq invading anyone in the last decade.

No, it's not. If it was incorrect to liberate Iraq, why was it correct to liberate Europe?

oh please. if you honestly can't see the difference between WWII and Iraq, I can't help you.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2062515 - 11/01/03 10:45 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

this is a more accurate portrayal of the situation than your simplistic morally clear scenario and this is the principle at play in the Iraq war.



No, a more accurate portrayal would be....

A group of people is being assaulted, tortured and killed by a smaller yet more powerful group. You can stop this second group yet you know doing so will possibly kill a minority of those you are trying to save.

This is the principle at play in the Iraq war.

Not much of a moral dilemma at all. Allow the murder, rape and torture of a lot, or stop it possibly killing a few.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2062576 - 11/01/03 11:32 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

yeah that's pretty accurate. except one thing. we won't possibly kill a few Iraqis, we will certainly kill them by intervening.

I'm glad that you and pinky have such moral clarity on this but for most of us, this is indeed a moral dilemma. those people didn't volunteer to be sacrificed for the greater good.

the question is: do we have the right to "volunteer" them to be sacrificed to save their countrymen?
what if they never asked for our help?
what if we simply replace the threat of Saddam Hussein with the threat of terrorism?
in case you haven't noticed, Baghdad wasn't getting rocked by terrorist bombs on a daily basis before the war.
if it was really our intention to protect the Iraqis, why did Bush say "bring 'em on" to the terrorists, who seem to have taken his advice and descended on Iraq?
If we're using Iraq to battle international terrorism (which didn't exist in Iraq before), how is this good for the Iraqi people?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2062610 - 11/01/03 12:07 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

infidelGOD said:
yeah that's pretty accurate. except one thing. we won't possibly kill a few Iraqis, we will certainly kill them by intervening.



Still far less than the status quo would have.

Quote:

I'm glad that you and pinky have such moral clarity on this but for most of us, this is indeed a moral dilemma. those people didn't volunteer to be sacrificed for the greater good.


neither did they volunteer to be Saddam and crews playthings.

Quote:

the question is: do we have the right to "volunteer" them to be sacrificed to save their countrymen?



Do we have the right to allow thousands more to die before acting? Both are debatable.

Quote:

what if they never asked for our help?



I'm reasonably sure many did.

Quote:

what if we simply replace the threat of Saddam Hussein with the threat of terrorism?



The threat of terrorism was, and remains there. Saddam is gone.

Quote:

in case you haven't noticed, Baghdad wasn't getting rocked by terrorist bombs on a daily basis before the war.



I noticed. The Iraqis possibly realize that we won't wipe out the families and friends of those who act. The price to pay if caught is now much smaller.

Quote:

if it was really our intention to protect the Iraqis, why did Bush say "bring 'em on" to the terrorists, who seem to have taken his advice and descended on Iraq?



Why does anyone say stupid things?

Quote:

If we're using Iraq to battle international terrorism (which didn't exist in Iraq before), how is this good for the Iraqi people?



Perhaps because they have less to fear from terrorists than from Saddam and Co.

As I said repeatedly before we went into Iraq, I hoped we wouldn't have to. The benefits of having done so outweigh the negatives, in my opinion.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGrandpa
Oh, my achingback

Registered: 07/22/03
Posts: 265
Loc: Springfield
Last seen: 18 years, 8 months
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2062838 - 11/01/03 02:13 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

luvdemshrooms said:
Quote:

the question is: do we have the right to "volunteer" them to be sacrificed to save their countrymen?



Do we have the right to allow thousands more to die before acting? Both are debatable.




Yes, we have that right. We had the right to not interfere in several other situations just like iraq occuring in other countries.


--------------------
I don't intend for this to take on a political tone. I'm just here for the drugs.
--Nancy Reagan, former First Lady


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,587
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 1 hour, 13 minutes
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2062846 - 11/01/03 02:17 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

infidelGOD said:
if we really, genuinely cared about the plight of the Iraqi people, shouldn't a full-scale invasion be the last resort?





Yes. Yes it was.


--------------------
Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ
(•_•)
<) )~  ANTIFA
/ \
\(•_•)
( (>    SUPER
/ \
(•_•)
<) )>    SOLDIERS
  / \


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinelysergic
Mycophile!
Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 691
Last seen: 20 years, 1 month
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2062912 - 11/01/03 02:54 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Utilitarianism - The action that is undertaken that is the greatest good for the greatest number of people is the action that is deemed morally correct.

If we could save the entire population of earth from a certain death, but the causal effect of our action would kill, say, 150,000 totally innocent human beings, wouldn't that judged as a moral action? If not, why not?


--------------------
In response to an attack killing 15 American Servicemen
PsiloKitten said:
Just give em a little more time, the iraqis are making great progress. And this is unorganized. Wait till they get organized.


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

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2063146 - 11/01/03 04:34 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

infidelGOD writes:

I never said using modern weapons was not justified.

Yeah you did. Your objection to the Iraq war was that civilians would die by being too close too bomb blasts intended for targets other than themselves. It is not just bombs that go astray. So do artillery rounds, rockets, mortar rounds, RPGs grenades, bullets, arrows, crossbow bolts, javelins, boomerangs. The only kind of weaponry which doesn't is handheld weaponry -- swords and cudgels.

there are certainly exceptions (like self-defense) where this is acceptable.

Let me get this straight. I can defend myself with weapons other than handheld, thereby putting innocents at risk, but I may not defend others? How does that figure?

but you were saying that our invasion of Iraq was analogous to a man coming to the aid of a woman being attacked. I was merely pointing out that this is a flawed analogy because he isn't killing any innocent civilians in the process of helping her.

So you are saying that one may assist others with their self-defense only if there is no possibility of killing non-combatants? In practice, this means one may not defend others, since the first thug smart enough to use hostages becomes invulnerable.

a better analogy would be this: lets say a woman is being attacked and you're about to intervene, but you know that in doing so you will be killing an innocent bystander. do you still have the right to intervene to save her?

"Will", or "may"?

I mean, of course we would have all supported the war if we could have removed Saddam Hussein without killing any innocent civilians. but the situation is much more complex than that. this isn't just about defending others. it's about sacrificing innocent people to defend others. I'm sure you see the difference here.

So you are saying there is no way to prevent a dictator who understands the concept of "human shields" from taking over not just his own country, but the entire world.

are you saying that we were not justified in attacking Germany even though they declared war on us? even though their ally attacked us? ok then.

Sigh. Do you bother to read what I write? Who said anything about not attacking Germany? Here it is again --

"So much for the morality of the Allied liberation of Europe in 1945."

To follow your exact argument, it was immoral for the Allies to invade Hitler's Europe by landing at Normandy because the Allied commanders knew without a shadow of a doubt that thousands and thousands of non-combatants would be killed in the process.

German U-boats were operating just miles off the East coast.

And these U-boats landed an invasion force in New Jersey?

They had the most technologically advanced armed forces in the world at the time, they had a nuclear program, as well as chemical and bio weapons.

None of their weapons had the capability of crossing the Atlantic ocean. By late 1941, they had no aircraft carriers, no invasion craft, the Bismarck was sunk. All they had left were U-boats.

they had ballistic missiles and jet powered cruise missiles (yes, in 1942)...

With a range of a few hundred miles.

they had a much more advanced military than the Japanese who managed to attack us, so they were certainly capable of reaching us.

The Japanese just barely made it to Hawaii -- out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, thousands of miles from the US.

...and once they had conqured Europe, England, the Soviet Union, North Africa and the Middle East, you think maybe, just maybe they would have turned their attention to America?

They had no way of conquering the Soviet Union. Many here have argued that the Allied effort wasn't even necessary -- that the USSR alone would have captured Berlin and ended the war.

I mean, they were hellbent on world domination. I don't think they would have been content to conquer Europe and sit on their laurels.

No? Hitler said he would have been. Why should we not have believed him? We believed Hussein, after all.

it would have been extremely naive and irresponsible for our leaders to think that.

But it would have been wise and responsible for our leaders to believe that Hussein had secretly destroyed all his WMDs and WMD programs with no documentation whatsoever to back his claim? Okay then.

even though Germany didn't attack us directly, our involvement would have been a legitimate use of the pre-emptive use of force because they were a direct threat to the United States.

Germany was never a direct threat to the United States.

well, I don't remember Iraq invading anyone in the last decade.

Do you remember Iraq abiding by any of the terms of the conditional ceasefire agreement which was signed after their last invasion? Neither do I. If the terms of a treaty ending hostilities are never met, hostilites may be resumed at any time. You are the one claiming that some treaties (i.e. a declaration of war where a single shot has yet to be fired) justify military action. Why not this one as well?

pinky


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCrobih
rap-cord
Registered: 11/03/98
Posts: 2,015
Loc: cave
Last seen: 11 years, 4 months
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Phred]
    #2063407 - 11/01/03 06:15 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Oligarchy :wink:.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,587
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 1 hour, 13 minutes
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Crobih]
    #2063517 - 11/01/03 06:48 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

You sank my scrabbleship.


--------------------
Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ
(•_•)
<) )~  ANTIFA
/ \
\(•_•)
( (>    SUPER
/ \
(•_•)
<) )>    SOLDIERS
  / \


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemonoamine
umask 077(nonefor you)

Registered: 09/06/02
Posts: 3,095
Loc: Jacksonville,FL
Last seen: 18 years, 4 months
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: Phred]
    #2063686 - 11/01/03 08:03 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Anywhere? Such as Korea in 1950, Europe in 1945, the Pacific in 1944, Kuwait in 1991, Kosovo in the Nineties, Liberia in 2003? Fair enough.





Besides WW2,I don't think we should have taken part in any of those wars. (BTW,that second A-bomb was not needed.)

Quote:

Yep. Those Unicef workers and Red Cross folks and Amnesty International dudes were pretty effective at keeping Hussein from killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who got on his wrong side, weren't they?




I was talking about feeding a starving population,not political dissidents.

Quote:

Why? What difference does it make where the troops are from?




We don't live in a vacuum,when one country fucks around with another country,other countries get involved.

We learned this the hard way in WW1 and to a lesser extent in WW2. This is why the League of Nations and later the U.N. were formed.
Perhaps if countries took a more global approach and actually used the U.N. for diplomacy every once in a while,we could advoid some unnessary bloodshed. Nationalism (oh sorry,I mean "patriotism") tends to get in the way.


Quote:

It may have escaped your notice that there were troops from the UK, Australia, Spain, Italy and others who took part in the invasion. Is this not multinational?




As far as I see,the only countries really taking part in this conflict are the U.K. and the U.S. The other countries (you left out several countries the size of New Jersey),are brown nosers.

Quote:

There was no invasion in 1991, which is what I assume you are referring to. No schools or hospitals were bombed in 2003. There are more schools and hospitals functioning now than there were in February of this year, and teachers and other Iraqi government employees are now making 15 to 20 times the salaries they had in February. I honestly fail to see your point here.





You missed the mark entirely,Mark.

Contrary to what Bush and co. may have you believe,Saddam did not sit around and eat babies all day. They had a system that was destroyed.Many,many people are now out of work because of this.
It's getting better,but there is still a lot their economic system in shambles.

Quote:

How is it questionable? Tell me specifically how the life of Achmed Iraqi is worse now than it was a year ago.




Questionable as in we can't predict the future. For the blue collar Achmed in Iraq,things are probably pretty much the same (provided is source of income and family didn't get wiped out during the invasion).

Quote:

Destabilize how? How do you define "destabilize"? Syria and Iran and even Saudi Arabia are now acting much more cautiously than they were two years ago. You think that's a coincidence? Again, are you saying it is better for Iraqis to have "stability" maintained by the routine murder of those who irritate Hussein?




Oh let's see...those countries hate us even more now (along with a large portion of the rest of the world). Again,you miss the bigger picture.

Quote:

And those are?




They're called Jihadis,look it up.

Quote:

Who says it was their main goal? For that matter, who says there needs to be a main goal? There were multiple justifications for deposing Hussein. Why must we pick one (any one) and insist that it was more valid than all the rest?





Oh yeah,I forgot.Their reasons changed every other day.







--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams


Edited by monoamine (11/01/03 08:08 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemonoamine
umask 077(nonefor you)

Registered: 09/06/02
Posts: 3,095
Loc: Jacksonville,FL
Last seen: 18 years, 4 months
Re: Is Anyone Actually Still In Favor Of the War? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2063691 - 11/01/03 08:05 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Ah... an affirmative action army.




Yes,that's exactly what I was talking about you rhetorical bastard.
For every blue-eyed white boy,I want a retard,a parapelgic,a Mexican,a black guy, and an asian kid.


--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract, Kratom Powder For Sale


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Arm yourself with info- 60 reasons we shouldnt be at war
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
PsiloKitten 11,185 93 11/02/13 08:08 PM
by Yogi1
* John Kerry's War Vote: Profiles in Political Calculation? Ancalagon 759 3 08/22/04 07:18 PM
by zappaisgod
* Support for War in Iraq Hits New Low RandalFlagg 336 0 01/19/05 05:50 PM
by RandalFlagg
* Poetry about politics and war PsiloKitten 574 3 04/11/03 06:41 AM
by PsiloKitten
* Kerry Favored Over Bush 47%-43% In Multi-Candidate Race fft2 1,065 11 08/19/04 08:03 PM
by Ed1
* All the evidence to indict Sharon on War Crimes nugsarenice 1,241 4 06/15/02 09:10 PM
by nugsarenice
* A preacher's view on The War on Drugs Phred 1,185 2 07/19/01 10:52 PM
by fuzzysquirelnuts
* Oh Brave leader....take us to war whiterasta 1,090 9 11/13/03 07:42 AM
by whiterasta

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
7,217 topic views. 3 members, 4 guests and 4 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 0.028 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 13 queries.