FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


America is you, no matter who you are





ahaug
I'm sure everyone's heard about the Pope's quoted comments about mohammid. How the only thing the muslim extremests have brought to the table was violence. Guess how the muslim extremests reacted. By burning churches. Does that not proove the Pope's point.

I think that muslim extremests and terrorist of the like are nothing but a bunch of pussys. Fight like a man and quit hiding. We as Americans are the most generous of people. We've given more money and resources to third-world countries than the entire International community put together. Everybody wants to talk shit on the U.S. until they need our help.

The United States is not it's own ethnicticity...we are every ethnicticity. From muslin to italian to french to spanish, it is like a miniature world. If you want to attack america then go ahead, but remember, we are you.
LukeakaDanish
ahaug wrote:
I'm sure everyone's heard about the Pope's quoted comments about mohammid. How the only thing the muslim extremests have brought to the table was violence. Guess how the muslim extremests reacted. By burning churches. Does that not proove the Pope's point.

I think that muslim extremests and terrorist of the like are nothing but a bunch of pussys. Fight like a man and quit hiding. We as Americans are the most generous of people. We've given more money and resources to third-world countries than the entire International community put together. Everybody wants to talk **** on the U.S. until they need our help.

The United States is not it's own ethnicticity...we are every ethnicticity. From muslin to italian to french to spanish, it is like a miniature world. If you want to attack america then go ahead, but remember, we are you.


Please remember that America has started wars with 2 muslim countries in the past 5 years. Sure, all ethnicities are represented in america, but are they all respected and treated as equals to the white, christian community?

Also america have falsely blamed Osama Bin Laden for the terror acts of 11th sep.

(dont belive me? - check out this, and THEN decide what to think)
ahamed
ahaug wrote:
We as Americans are the most generous of people. We've given more money and resources to third-world countries than the entire International community put together.


of-course ... also killing people and threat to bomb attack if not support US for war, as did in pakistan. U didn't see what ur country make IRAQ ?? Have u noticed how many people is dieing everyday in IRAQ ?? I know u people always feel proud of this. B'coz Americans are the most generous of people !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ocalhoun
His point is, that hating America is simply hating the whole world. There were muslims who died on 9/11 and there are surely muslims fighting in the US army in Iraq.
As for America attacking muslim exremists, perhaps if those extremists (in general, not any specific ones) would stop attacking, they would stop being attacked (unlikely now that the war on terror is started).
As for killing civilians, if the terrorists hide behind civilians, then we have no choice but to go through the civilians to get to the terrorists. Should the terrorists come out and make a fair fight of it, very few more civilians would die.

I wonder if presedent Bush was a muslim, but had the exact same policies and made the exact same decisions, would they still hate him?
LukeakaDanish
ocalhoun wrote:

I wonder if presedent Bush was a muslim, but had the exact same policies and made the exact same decisions, would they still hate him?


He wouldnt have been made president *duh*...

But yea...I'm not gonna make myself an expert on muslims, however they fight each other quite a lot, so I'm pretty certain that if he started bombing their countries, they would without a doubt hate him anyway...
Bikerman
ocalhoun wrote:
His point is, that hating America is simply hating the whole world. There were muslims who died on 9/11 and there are surely muslims fighting in the US army in Iraq.

How dare they fight an invading army. They obviously haven't read the rules.
Quote:

As for America attacking muslim exremists, perhaps if those extremists (in general, not any specific ones) would stop attacking, they would stop being attacked (unlikely now that the war on terror is started).
As for killing civilians, if the terrorists hide behind civilians, then we have no choice but to go through the civilians to get to the terrorists. Should the terrorists come out and make a fair fight of it, very few more civilians would die.

We have no choice ? So to get the bad guy you simply have to kill the innocents in the way then ? OK..that sounds like a plan. An immoral, illegal and despicable plan, but certainly a plan.
If your mother or sister were held hostage by an armed robber I suppose the same would apply. Shoot through the woman - you have to, in order to kill the bad guy.
If the bad guy kills civilians it is terrorism but if the US does then it is necessary. Hmm...
If the Iraqis plant bonbs and fire guns they are terrorists but the invading US troops are just trying to stop them attacking...hmmm...
In the words of James Bond (Connery was the *only* Bond)...
Shurely shome mishtake....

Quote:

I wonder if presedent Bush was a muslim, but had the exact same policies and made the exact same decisions, would they still hate him?

Well...in the case of Al Qaeda, yes they would. They are opposed to the muslim House of Saud who rule Saudi. The worst thing that Osama can say about anyone is the phrase he used against them...'
Quote:
They are bad muslims'.

It's not just the muslims who hate Bush (and Blair). I imagine anyone who has had family and friends killed or maimed over the last few years is not too kindly disposed to either of them. I don't think I would be joining their fan clubs if I were an Iraqi.

Chris
ahaug
He didn't say kill the civiliams to get to the terrorists, he said you have to go through them. Meaning you can't just bomb the the terrorist's cells cause they're are in the middle of civilian terrortory. You have to send ground troops. You think any other country exercises the extreme caution we do around civilian areas...no, they would bomb the shit out of us and not care who they hurt in the way. If you think we kill civilians to get to terrorists then there would be no Al-Quada, no Taliban, or any other extreme group. But we don't...that's why this war in Iraq is taking so long and that's why the war on terror will take forever, because they are cowards and hide behind innocent people.
Bikerman
ahaug wrote:
He didn't say kill the civiliams to get to the terrorists, he said you have to go through them. Meaning you can't just bomb the the terrorist's cells cause they're are in the middle of civilian terrortory. You have to send ground troops. You think any other country exercises the extreme caution we do around civilian areas...no, they would bomb the **** out of us and not care who they hurt in the way. If you think we kill civilians to get to terrorists then there would be no Al-Quada, no Taliban, or any other extreme group. But we don't...that's why this war in Iraq is taking so long and that's why the war on terror will take forever, because they are cowards and hide behind innocent people.

So on the one hand they blow themselves up and on the other they are cowards. That does not seem consistent.
As for the statement about going through civilians, I think that if you read the whole thing then the meaning is quite clear and it is, put simple, if civilians are iin the way and they get killed then so be it - we have no choice.
This is the passage in question..I quote :
Quote:
As for killing civilians, if the terrorists hide behind civilians, then we have no choice but to go through the civilians to get to the terrorists. Should the terrorists come out and make a fair fight of it, very few more civilians would die.


So I repeat my previous point. If a kidnapper had a relative of yours at gunpoint then would you consider it acceptible to get the guy at all costs (OK - trying if possible not to kill the relative, but if there is no other option then doing so) ? Most people would not regard that as a defensible course of action - there would be an outcry, in fact.
So this is another case of double standards. Because the civilians are not 'ours' then they are expendible in the war against the terrorists. We would not and do not accept that stance for outselves but it is 'necessary' and there is 'no choice' when it is the other guy.

Chris.
ahamed
I support the logic of Bikerman. Ya, it's really worse to attack extremists while they hide in civilians. Terrorists are always terrorists .. no matter whether he is muslim or other religion ... u should fight against them but with keeping safe civilians. If you kill a single civilian to fight against terrorists, it' will be un-fare to that civilian. What's his fault ? Noting ... do we imagine a single persons death also brigns death to how many people related to him ?
LukeakaDanish
ahamed wrote:
Terrorists are always terrorists .. no matter whether he is muslim or other religion ... u should fight against them but with keeping safe civilians.


Hm...whats your definition of a terrorist?

"Someone who attacks civilian targets, rather than military"?

That makes sence - terrorist try to fill their enemies in war with fear.

WRONG!

The only reason they attack civilian targets is because they dont have planes which can fly around the globe, drop a bomb which destoys a hangar and then fly back home.

They are less well of than us, therefor they are forced to use their only weapon to win the war, namely themselves. Give them WOMD (or long range misilies), and im sure they wouldnt bother with suicide attacks - they would fight like any other army - like america!

So the definition of a terrorist should be more like:

"Someone who wants to fight a country who has a much more advanced military than himself".

Think
nopaniers
America is not the world. Even as an Australian, I can say that our culture, and in particular our attitudes are quite different from yours. Do you even know who Don Bradman, Andrew Ettinghausen, Bob Hawke or Weary Dunlop are? Can you tell me how many points you get for a behind in Aussie Rules, where VB is brewed, or what JJJ is? People around the world are not little Americans, and don't want to be.

Quote:
We've given more money and resources to third-world countries than the entire International community put together.


That's not true. In 2003, for example, the 22 wealthiest countries in the world $69 billion, of which the US gave around $16.3 billion. Per person (a better comparison, because it is a little unfair to expect that my country, Australia, with 20 million people would give as much as the US with some 295 million people) the US gives $51 per citizen, well behind most European countries - for example the UK gives $86 per person, Netherlands $203 per person, Norway $381, and France $96. Per GDP, the US rates last on the list of industrialized countries (although admittedly they do sometimes beat the Italians), giving 0.15% to aid. In comparison, Norway gives 0.92%, Denmark 0.84% and Belgium 0.6%. Even if you include private donations (including the large amounts of money that the US sends to developed countries like Israel) then the US still rates 15th in the world, not first. The largest private giver is actually Ireland with 0.22% of income.
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:

How dare they fight an invading army. They obviously haven't read the rules.

Did I say they shoudn't fight back? No. But their time to fight back was when the war first started.
Bikerman wrote:

Quote:

As for America attacking muslim exremists, perhaps if those extremists (in general, not any specific ones) would stop attacking, they would stop being attacked (unlikely now that the war on terror is started).
As for killing civilians, if the terrorists hide behind civilians, then we have no choice but to go through the civilians to get to the terrorists. Should the terrorists come out and make a fair fight of it, very few more civilians would die.

We have no choice ? So to get the bad guy you simply have to kill the innocents in the way then ? OK..that sounds like a plan. An immoral, illegal and despicable plan, but certainly a plan.

Immoral? More immoral than what the terrorists do?
Illigal? Says who? Ever heard the quote 'there are no rules in love or war'
despicable? Perhaps; its a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it.
Bikerman wrote:

If your mother or sister were held hostage by an armed robber I suppose the same would apply. Shoot through the woman - you have to, in order to kill the bad guy.

To keep 'the bad guy' from taking more hostages later, yes. As Asimov puts it, 'never let your sense of morals keep you from doing what is right.'
Bikerman wrote:

If the bad guy kills civilians it is terrorism but if the US does then it is necessary. Hmm...

Yes, you see, either way civilians are going to die, but which way produces the fewest civilian deaths in the long run?
Bikerman wrote:

If the Iraqis plant bonbs and fire guns they are terrorists but the invading US troops are just trying to stop them attacking...hmmm...

They don't show any signs of stopping on their own; who will stop them? The US pulling out wouldn't help, then they would just attack eachother untill one came out on top, then that one would attack the US.
Bikerman wrote:

In the words of James Bond (Connery was the *only* Bond)...
Shurely shome mishtake....

Yes, I do see some mistakes.
Bikerman wrote:

... I don't think I would be joining their fan clubs if I were an Iraqi.

That's exactly what the terrorists want. You're too terrified to express opinions freely. Do you really want to live like that?
LukeakaDanish
ocalhoun wrote:
Bikerman wrote:

How dare they fight an invading army. They obviously haven't read the rules.

Did I say they shoudn't fight back? No. But their time to fight back was when the war first started.


How could they? America has a thousand times more troops and weapons, so the only LOGICAL (yes, terorists are logical too) choice was to wait for an opportunity to deal damage to america.
ocalhoun wrote:

Bikerman wrote:

Quote:

As for America attacking muslim exremists, perhaps if those extremists (in general, not any specific ones) would stop attacking, they would stop being attacked (unlikely now that the war on terror is started).
As for killing civilians, if the terrorists hide behind civilians, then we have no choice but to go through the civilians to get to the terrorists. Should the terrorists come out and make a fair fight of it, very few more civilians would die.

We have no choice ? So to get the bad guy you simply have to kill the innocents in the way then ? OK..that sounds like a plan. An immoral, illegal and despicable plan, but certainly a plan.

Immoral? More immoral than what the terrorists do?
Illigal? Says who? Ever heard the quote 'there are no rules in love or war'
despicable? Perhaps; its a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it.


Have you ever heard the expression "Turn the other cheek" - because america are more powerful and wealthy than people from "terrrrrrst" countries, they should have the extra capacity for taking the first step towards peace - not the first step towards revenge and bloody war.

You quote is ridiculous...do you seriously think killing a person because you feel jealous is an ok thing to do? Illegal? HELL YEA - there where no WOMD. Osama DIDNT order 9/11 (watch loose change if you dont believe me). also the theoretic world police (NATO) didnt give a green-light for the war in iraq.
ocalhoun wrote:

Bikerman wrote:

If your mother or sister were held hostage by an armed robber I suppose the same would apply. Shoot through the woman - you have to, in order to kill the bad guy.

To keep 'the bad guy' from taking more hostages later, yes. As Asimov puts it, 'never let your sense of morals keep you from doing what is right.'
Bikerman wrote:

If the bad guy kills civilians it is terrorism but if the US does then it is necessary. Hmm...

Yes, you see, either way civilians are going to die, but which way produces the fewest civilian deaths in the long run?


People killed in 11. sep: 2,973
People killed in iraq and afghanistan: 43,387 to 48,174

...I think i proved my point.

Quote:

Bikerman wrote:

If the Iraqis plant bonbs and fire guns they are terrorists but the invading US troops are just trying to stop them attacking...hmmm...

They don't show any signs of stopping on their own; who will stop them? The US pulling out wouldn't help, then they would just attack eachother untill one came out on top, then that one would attack the US.
Bikerman wrote:

In the words of James Bond (Connery was the *only* Bond)...
Shurely shome mishtake....

Yes, I do see some mistakes.


When spelling mistakes become your only argument, you might aswel throw in the towel.

ocalhoun wrote:

Bikerman wrote:

... I don't think I would be joining their fan clubs if I were an Iraqi.

That's exactly what the terrorists want. You're too terrified to express opinions freely. Do you really want to live like that?


Thats not what terrorist want. They want a world where they are treated like us, and have the same opportunities in life, as us. They are not stupid! - they dont kill themselves for "no good reason"
Bikerman
ocalhoun wrote:

Did I say they shoudn't fight back? No. But their time to fight back was when the war first started.

Ahh...I didn't realise there was a time limit.
Quote:

As for America attacking muslim exremists, perhaps if those extremists (in general, not any specific ones) would stop attacking, they would stop being attacked (unlikely now that the war on terror is started).
As for killing civilians, if the terrorists hide behind civilians, then we have no choice but to go through the civilians to get to the terrorists. Should the terrorists come out and make a fair fight of it, very few more civilians would die.

How many such attacks have the Iraqis launched on the US ?
The 9/11 attack was largely Saudi-arabians (which country you still count as an ally) and nothing at all to do with Iraq. The idea that the US is attacking terrorists in Iraq was carefully manufactured before the war but was seen through immediately and is not treated seriously by any commentators I can thing of.
Quote:

Immoral? More immoral than what the terrorists do?
Illigal? Says who? Ever heard the quote 'there are no rules in love or war'
despicable? Perhaps; its a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it.

That's the point really. There was no job to do in Iraq regarding terrorism since it was not a sponsor of terrorists and had no problems itself with terrorism, other than that of their ruler. Immoral it surely is, although it depends on your own moral code. Illegal it also is, according to most experts on international law, since the only justification for invading a sovereign state is self-defence.
More immoral than the terrorists ? It IS terrorism so I don't understand the question.
Quote:
To keep the 'bad guy' from taking more hostages later, yes. As Asimov puts it, 'never let your sense of morals keep you from doing what is right.'

You'll have to forgive me but I'm afraid I don't believe you.
I also doubt Asimov ever intended that phrase as anything other than ironic, since I know his work pretty well and he was certainly intelligent enough to know that it is a false dichotomy
Quote:

Bikerman wrote:

If the bad guy kills civilians it is terrorism but if the US does then it is necessary. Hmm...

Yes, you see, either way civilians are going to die, but which way produces the fewest civilian deaths in the long run?

Do the math youself. Number of civilians killed by the US actions in Afghanistan and Iraq ? 50,000 would seem a reasonable figure.
Quote:

Bikerman wrote:

If the Iraqis plant bonbs and fire guns they are terrorists but the invading US troops are just trying to stop them attacking...hmmm...

They don't show any signs of stopping on their own; who will stop them? The US pulling out wouldn't help, then they would just attack eachother untill one came out on top, then that one would attack the US.

They never attacked the US before the invasion. By international agreement a person fighting an invader in their own country is NOT a terrorist. The word should be used correctly in this context - ie to describe the UK/US forces.
Quote:

That's exactly what the terrorists want. You're too terrified to express opinions freely. Do you really want to live like that?

Terrified ? Me ? Of whom ? The US is the only one scaring me at the moment. I have expressed my opinions as clearly as I wanted to and am certainly not to terrified to call things as I see them - I wonder why you might think I was ?

Regards
Chris
nopaniers
Today Bush is praising Kazakhstan.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5393574.stm

Since Kazakhstan became independant they have never had an election which met international standards. For example, in the 2005 presidential 'elections', two leading opposition candidates were murdered shortly before the poll:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4712674.stm

They have harsh censorship laws, and opposition parties are regularly harrassed, if they are allowed to meet at all, since the government passed many restrictions on the freedom of assembly, they ban opposition parties such as the 'Democratic Choice of Kazakhstan' and the media is state run. See for example:

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/10/12/kazakh11853.htm

Apparently this passes for a 'free nation' in Bush's eyes. He wants to turn a blind eye to the fact that they recently forcibly returned prodemocracy demonstrators to Uzbekistan (where pro-democracy demonstrators were massacred).

Why? Because US investors benefit from Kazakh oil wealth and oil pipelines. The US enjoys Kazakh support for it's two wars in the region - in Afghanistan and Iraq. It has nothing to do with human rights, democracy or anything else good or admirable. All you have to do in America's eyes to be a free nation is to support America's power and wealth.
ocalhoun
LukeakaDanish wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Bikerman wrote:

How dare they fight an invading army. They obviously haven't read the rules.

Did I say they shoudn't fight back? No. But their time to fight back was when the war first started.


How could they? America has a thousand times more troops and weapons, so the only LOGICAL (yes, terorists are logical too) choice was to wait for an opportunity to deal damage to america.

That's the whole problem; are they defending their country? No. They're trying to damage America in any way they can. The real motive is revenge; they can't possibly expect any real lasting victory.
LukeakaDanish wrote:

ocalhoun wrote:

Bikerman wrote:

Quote:

As for America attacking muslim exremists, perhaps if those extremists (in general, not any specific ones) would stop attacking, they would stop being attacked (unlikely now that the war on terror is started).
As for killing civilians, if the terrorists hide behind civilians, then we have no choice but to go through the civilians to get to the terrorists. Should the terrorists come out and make a fair fight of it, very few more civilians would die.

We have no choice ? So to get the bad guy you simply have to kill the innocents in the way then ? OK..that sounds like a plan. An immoral, illegal and despicable plan, but certainly a plan.

Immoral? More immoral than what the terrorists do?
Illigal? Says who? Ever heard the quote 'there are no rules in love or war'
despicable? Perhaps; its a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it.


Have you ever heard the expression "Turn the other cheek"

Oh, that's not hypocritical; the muslim extremists are very good at turning the other cheek, right?
LukeakaDanish wrote:

- because america are more powerful and wealthy than people from "terrrrrrst" countries, they should have the extra capacity for taking the first step towards peace - not the first step towards revenge and bloody war.

So now we have a double standard eh? Poor countries are entitled to revenge, but rich ones are not?
LukeakaDanish wrote:

You quote is ridiculous...

Yes, I find it quite amusing myself
LukeakaDanish wrote:

do you seriously think killing a person because you feel jealous is an ok thing to do?

Jealous? As you stated earlier, the US is far superior, what do we have to be jealous of, your peace and harmony?
LukeakaDanish wrote:


Illegal? HELL YEA - there where no WOMD. Osama DIDNT order 9/11 (watch loose change if you dont believe me).
You can keep your liberal propaganda to yourself, thank you very much. Myself, I don't care if they're guilty of those particular crimes or not, but I'm sure they do have blood on their hands.
LukeakaDanish wrote:

also the theoretic world police (NATO) didnt give a green-light for the war in iraq.

Does NATO rule the world? Since when does an independant nation have to ask permission to go to war?
LukeakaDanish wrote:

ocalhoun wrote:

Bikerman wrote:

If your mother or sister were held hostage by an armed robber I suppose the same would apply. Shoot through the woman - you have to, in order to kill the bad guy.

To keep 'the bad guy' from taking more hostages later, yes. As Asimov puts it, 'never let your sense of morals keep you from doing what is right.'
Bikerman wrote:

If the bad guy kills civilians it is terrorism but if the US does then it is necessary. Hmm...

Yes, you see, either way civilians are going to die, but which way produces the fewest civilian deaths in the long run?


People killed in 11. sep: 2,973
People killed in iraq and afghanistan: 43,387 to 48,174

People that would have been killed by those 48,174 in Iraq and Afghanistan if 9/11 went unpunished: ?
LukeakaDanish wrote:


...I think i proved my point.

Perhaps more civilians have died this way (though I'm by no means certain of that), but again, the USA is a nation. The government's job is to protect it's people, not the people of another nation.
LukeakaDanish wrote:


Quote:

Bikerman wrote:

If the Iraqis plant bonbs and fire guns they are terrorists but the invading US troops are just trying to stop them attacking...hmmm...

They don't show any signs of stopping on their own; who will stop them? The US pulling out wouldn't help, then they would just attack eachother untill one came out on top, then that one would attack the US.
Bikerman wrote:

In the words of James Bond (Connery was the *only* Bond)...
Shurely shome mishtake....

Yes, I do see some mistakes.


When spelling mistakes become your only argument, you might aswel throw in the towel.

I wasn't refering to spelling mistakes.
LukeakaDanish wrote:

ocalhoun wrote:

Bikerman wrote:

... I don't think I would be joining their fan clubs if I were an Iraqi.

That's exactly what the terrorists want. You're too terrified to express opinions freely. Do you really want to live like that?


Thats not what terrorist want. They want a world where they are treated like us, and have the same opportunities in life, as us. They are not stupid! - they dont kill themselves for "no good reason"

So that's what they want, eh? But wait, you said they aren't stupid, yet they're trying to be accepted by us and granted opportunities by us through attacking us? If they're so smart, how come they can't find a better way to that goal?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bikerman wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:

Did I say they shoudn't fight back? No. But their time to fight back was when the war first started.

Ahh...I didn't realise there was a time limit.
Quote:

As for America attacking muslim exremists, perhaps if those extremists (in general, not any specific ones) would stop attacking, they would stop being attacked (unlikely now that the war on terror is started).
As for killing civilians, if the terrorists hide behind civilians, then we have no choice but to go through the civilians to get to the terrorists. Should the terrorists come out and make a fair fight of it, very few more civilians would die.

How many such attacks have the Iraqis launched on the US ?
The 9/11 attack was largely Saudi-arabians (which country you still count as an ally) and nothing at all to do with Iraq. The idea that the US is attacking terrorists in Iraq was carefully manufactured before the war but was seen through immediately and is not treated seriously by any commentators I can thing of.

^You actually listen to the commentators? The media is liberal, the commentators are a branch of the media; of course they don't take the idea of the US attacking terrorists in Iraq seriously.
Bikerman wrote:

Quote:

Immoral? More immoral than what the terrorists do?
Illigal? Says who? Ever heard the quote 'there are no rules in love or war'
despicable? Perhaps; its a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it.

That's the point really. There was no job to do in Iraq regarding terrorism since it was not a sponsor of terrorists and had no problems itself with terrorism, other than that of their ruler.
That's a pretty big qualification right there...
Bikerman wrote:

Immoral it surely is, although it depends on your own moral code. Illegal it also is, according to most experts on international law, since the only justification for invading a sovereign state is self-defence.
International law is a farce to keep the weak nations in line. Suppose you got everyone to agree that the USA is a dangerous aggresor and should be stopped... Could the rest of the world put together expect victory?
Bikerman wrote:

More immoral than the terrorists ? It IS terrorism so I don't understand the question.

You backed yourself nicely into that trap: If what we're doing is terrorisim, then it is by definition exactly as moral as what the terrorists do. That puts us on equal moral grounds.
Bikerman wrote:

Quote:
To keep the 'bad guy' from taking more hostages later, yes. As Asimov puts it, 'never let your sense of morals keep you from doing what is right.'

You'll have to forgive me but I'm afraid I don't believe you.
I forgive you.
Bikerman wrote:

I also doubt Asimov ever intended that phrase as anything other than ironic, since I know his work pretty well and he was certainly intelligent enough to know that it is a false dichotomy

Not really, sometimes what is moral and what is right are two different things.
Bikerman wrote:

Quote:

Bikerman wrote:

If the bad guy kills civilians it is terrorism but if the US does then it is necessary. Hmm...

Yes, you see, either way civilians are going to die, but which way produces the fewest civilian deaths in the long run?

Do the math youself. Number of civilians killed by the US actions in Afghanistan and Iraq ? 50,000 would seem a reasonable figure.

More like 48,000, but that's quibbling over details. The number of civilian deaths with a different course of action cannot be determined, so how can we know which number would be higher? Besides, as I said earlier, if the terrorists would stop attacking no more civilians would die, however, if the USA just pulled out and left, many more civilans would die in the countries' internal conflicts.
Bikerman wrote:

Quote:

Bikerman wrote:

If the Iraqis plant bonbs and fire guns they are terrorists but the invading US troops are just trying to stop them attacking...hmmm...

They don't show any signs of stopping on their own; who will stop them? The US pulling out wouldn't help, then they would just attack eachother untill one came out on top, then that one would attack the US.

They never attacked the US before the invasion. By international agreement a person fighting an invader in their own country is NOT a terrorist. The word should be used correctly in this context - ie to describe the UK/US forces.

If you'll notice, you are the one who called them terrorists in that particular exchange, while I didn't use that term. And besides, you already know that I don't care at all about 'international agreement' if I'm the only one in the world who's right, that won't change my mind.
Bikerman wrote:

Quote:

That's exactly what the terrorists want. You're too terrified to express opinions freely. Do you really want to live like that?

Terrified ? Me ?
No not you, LukeakaDanish. He was the one who was afraid to join a certain fan club.
Bikerman wrote:

Of whom ?
The terrorists.
*tries very hard not to indulge in personal flaming*
Bikerman wrote:
The US is the only one scaring me at the moment. I have expressed my opinions as clearly as I wanted to and am certainly not to terrified to call things as I see them - I wonder why you might think I was ?
Again, you are not the one who has been kept from expressing an opinion, wether it is a desirable one or not, by fear. Apparently, you are still above that influence. You should just be glad that the USA has higher standards of freedom, or you would have legitimate reason to fear.
LukeakaDanish
Quote:
That's the whole problem; are they defending their country? No. They're trying to damage America in any way they can. The real motive is revenge; they can't possibly expect any real lasting victory.


Pfft...neither side is defending their country, but in war the goal is to hurt the other side, which is exactly what america do when they go on some revenge frenzy somewhere thousands of kilometers from america.

Quote:
Oh, that's not hypocritical; the muslim extremists are very good at turning the other cheek, right?


Wow - I actually thought americans where meant to be christians, not muslims :S
America are stronger - thats why they should be able to take the first steps.

Quote:
So now we have a double standard eh? Poor countries are entitled to revenge, but rich ones are not?


Yes - aas i said above - America are stronger - thats why they should be able to take the first steps.

Quote:
Jealous? As you stated earlier, the US is far superior, what do we have to be jealous of, your peace and harmony?


If you take my quote out of context, then it looks wrong, true. I was merely trying to prove that your "saying" was kinda stupid in the context you put it in. (And im not from the middle east - im from denmark, which is in europe in case you wondered)

Quote:
You can keep your liberal propaganda to yourself, thank you very much. Myself, I don't care if they're guilty of those particular crimes or not, but I'm sure they do have blood on their hands.


As my statistics from wikipedia in my above post proove, america have a LOT more blood on their hands than afghans and iraqees have put together

Quote:
Does NATO rule the world? Since when does an independant nation have to ask permission to go to war?


Did you notice that i put "theoretic" ?
The cold war shows that we need to communicate and agree on things if we dont want a nuclear war.

Quote:
People that would have been killed by those 48,174 in Iraq and Afghanistan if 9/11 went unpunished: ?


None - they wherent military casualties but just random civilians (and I sincerely hope your not the kind of person who thinks all muslims are terrorists)

Quote:
Perhaps more civilians have died this way (though I'm by no means certain of that), but again, the USA is a nation. The government's job is to protect it's people, not the people of another nation.


How do you protect your nation by flying to the other side of the world and killing almost fifty thousand civilians? The short answer is you dont - you make the rest mad at you (terrorists arent terorists for fun)

Quote:
So that's what they want, eh? But wait, you said they aren't stupid, yet they're trying to be accepted by us and granted opportunities by us through attacking us? If they're so smart, how come they can't find a better way to that goal?


Im not saying they are smart - they havent had the same education as most americans, but im gonna put the question to you: How would they achieve equality and respect for their race and religion?

I dont think thats a simple question. I dont think its a dilemma the poor part of the world can solve by themselves.

Why is vandalism done by the poor? Its not that complicated psychology - they're envious and want attention - those arent very moral goals, but its normal human psyche, so its essentially the fault of those more well of, for not solving the problems before they got out of hands.


I dont mean offence towards you or your views with anything you say, or indeed towards the american people or government style. Im just tryin to defend my argument that the wars america have been leading havent been propperly justifyed, and trying to ask america to take the first step in making the world a better and more peaceful place.
ocalhoun
LukeakaDanish wrote:
Quote:
That's the whole problem; are they defending their country? No. They're trying to damage America in any way they can. The real motive is revenge; they can't possibly expect any real lasting victory.


Pfft...neither side is defending their country, but in war the goal is to hurt the other side, which is exactly what america do when they go on some revenge frenzy somewhere thousands of kilometers from america.

No, the goal in war is to defeat the other side, that's why civilized countries have such things as surrender.
LukeakaDanish wrote:

Quote:
Oh, that's not hypocritical; the muslim extremists are very good at turning the other cheek, right?


Wow - I actually thought americans where meant to be christians, not muslims :S
And since when are all Americans christians? What basis do you have to hold a nation that welcomes all religions to the morals of any one of those religions, even if it is the most promenant?
LukeakaDanish wrote:

America are stronger - thats why they should be able to take the first steps.
They have, just not in the direction you'd like: they decided to have peace by the eradication of their enimies, not the placation of their ememies.
LukeakaDanish wrote:


Quote:
So now we have a double standard eh? Poor countries are entitled to revenge, but rich ones are not?


Yes - aas i said above - America are stronger - thats why they should be able to take the first steps.

Oh, now that's fair. If the muslims want equality, why don't they start by applying equal moral standards to themselves?
LukeakaDanish wrote:


Quote:
Jealous? As you stated earlier, the US is far superior, what do we have to be jealous of, your peace and harmony?


If you take my quote out of context, then it looks wrong, true. I was merely trying to prove that your "saying" was kinda stupid in the context you put it in. (And im not from the middle east - im from denmark, which is in europe in case you wondered)
I know precisely where Denmark is, thank you.
*Tries very, very hard to not indulge in personal flaming*
LukeakaDanish wrote:


Quote:
You can keep your liberal propaganda to yourself, thank you very much. Myself, I don't care if they're guilty of those particular crimes or not, but I'm sure they do have blood on their hands.


As my statistics from wikipedia in my above post proove, america have a LOT more blood on their hands than afghans and iraqees have put together

Perhaps, but I wouln't count on it. How many people is Saddam on trial for killing? Really, I forget.
LukeakaDanish wrote:


Quote:
Does NATO rule the world? Since when does an independant nation have to ask permission to go to war?


Did you notice that i put "theoretic" ?
The cold war shows that we need to communicate and agree on things if we dont want a nuclear war.

And the Iraq war shows that that is only needed when there is strife between two nuclear powers; or has the Iraq war let to nuclear destruction without me noticing?
LukeakaDanish wrote:


Quote:
People that would have been killed by those 48,174 in Iraq and Afghanistan if 9/11 went unpunished: ?


None - they wherent military casualties but just random civilians (and I sincerely hope your not the kind of person who thinks all muslims are terrorists)
No not all muslims are terrorists, but I find it highly improbable that all of those 'civilians' actualy were innocent, seeing as how the enemy disguises themselves as civilians.
LukeakaDanish wrote:


Quote:
Perhaps more civilians have died this way (though I'm by no means certain of that), but again, the USA is a nation. The government's job is to protect it's people, not the people of another nation.


How do you protect your nation by flying to the other side of the world and killing almost fifty thousand civilians?
You don't, you fly in and kill a few thousand terrorists hiding behind 50,000 civilians.
LukeakaDanish wrote:
The short answer is you dont - you make the rest mad at you (terrorists arent terorists for fun)

You make them mad yes, but hopefully you make them scared too.
LukeakaDanish wrote:


Quote:
So that's what they want, eh? But wait, you said they aren't stupid, yet they're trying to be accepted by us and granted opportunities by us through attacking us? If they're so smart, how come they can't find a better way to that goal?


Im not saying they are smart - they havent had the same education as most americans, but im gonna put the question to you: How would they achieve equality and respect for their race and religion?

Perhaps the same exact way all the other religions and ethnic groups have? Naw, that would be to simple, right?
LukeakaDanish wrote:


I dont think thats a simple question. I dont think its a dilemma the poor part of the world can solve by themselves.

So now we're talking about the whole of the world's poor are we? I don't notice any Africans killing senselessly in order to gain acceptance and equality (well, other than internal genocide, but that's for other reasons), yet there is certainly poverty there. Perhaps the Arabs could learn from them?
LukeakaDanish wrote:


Why is vandalism done by the poor? Its not that complicated psychology - they're envious and want attention - those arent very moral goals, but its normal human psyche, so its essentially the fault of those more well of, for not solving the problems before they got out of hands.

Another human tendancy: putting the blame on others. I can understand a theif forced by poverty to steal, but a vandal could be stopped by just a little application of morality with no harm to himself.
LukeakaDanish wrote:



I dont mean offence towards you or your views with anything you say, or indeed towards the american people or government style.
Not even that crack about educating me about the geographical location of Denmark?
LukeakaDanish wrote:
Im just tryin to defend my argument that the wars america have been leading havent been propperly justifyed,
Perhaps not, but that's the fault of bad intelligence and Iraqis not cooperating with weapons inspectors.
LukeakaDanish wrote:
and trying to ask america to take the first step in making the world a better and more peaceful place.

We did that when we drove Hitler back to Germany, now its your turn. Go have Denmark end the conflict.
LukeakaDanish
Quote:
No, the goal in war is to defeat the other side, that's why civilized countries have such things as surrender.


By that america can take over pretty much any country because they have a stronger military - and the country isnt allowed to put up a struggle Eh?

Quote:
They have, just not in the direction you'd like: they decided to have peace by the eradication of their enimies, not the placation of their ememies.


Hitting back just ISNT turning the other cheek - do you think it is?

America will never be able to kill their way into the hearts of the middle east, and therefor they will never win the war on terrorism.

If they dont try to make peace the war with the less well of countries will last forever. Thats why I ask for them to take the first steps.

Quote:
Oh, now that's fair. If the muslims want equality, why don't they start by applying equal moral standards to themselves?


The degree of equality present in america today (im talking sexual equality and capitalism) is only there because americans are educated people, and have learned to treat each other as equals some time in the late ninteenth century - if we try to get muslim countries out of the middle ages and into the modern times, then maybe they too will be able to realize that they need to treat their women propperly.

Quote:
I know precisely where Denmark is, thank you.
*Tries very, very hard to not indulge in personal flaming*


I'm sorry that you where offended by that - it wasnt meant as a joke on americans IN ANY WAY, but was rather a sign of me knowing that denmark is a very small country, and therefor not neccesarily known by everyone (the message was for anybody else reading this topic aswel)

Quote:
And the Iraq war shows that that is only needed when there is strife between two nuclear powers; or has the Iraq war let to nuclear destruction without me noticing?


America still hasent found any WOMD to my knowledge - so iraq arent a nuclear power. Also my point was that the rich world should agree on what wars should be fought, just so that we dont have to get *mad* at each other (even against my intentions, you are very mad at me Crying or Very sad)

Quote:
No not all muslims are terrorists, but I find it highly improbable that all of those 'civilians' actualy were innocent, seeing as how the enemy disguises themselves as civilians.


Did you think that argument over propeprly?

Here's why I dont like it:

1: If its 'ok' to kill civilians just because they *might* be terrorists, then essentially America shouldnt bomb military targets with small precise misilies, they should just throw a thousand nuclear bombs on all countries in the world, as essentially, and person could be a terrorist.

2: If you shoot a terrorist diguised as a civilian, you will surely find out that he's a terrorist after you've killed him and therefor NOT count his death as a civilian death

3: Seen as there was probably at least one military casualty of 9/11, your argument essentially justifies terrorist from making these attacks (i still dont believe they did)

Quote:
You don't, you fly in and kill a few thousand terrorists hiding behind 50,000 civilians.


1: I dont believe terrorist where behind the 9/11 attacks.
I was again urge you to watch loose change, as linked in my above post - its NOT liberal in any way, its just a random person who wants some answers from his government. He presents some facts and then asks why - he doesnt jump to any conclusions, which arent COMPLETELY justified by undoubtable facts.

2: Well...when you attack Iraq or Afghanistan, where else can the Iraqee and Afghan people hide, than among their own people? Should they meet you in an open war they would obviously loose?

Quote:
You make them mad yes, but hopefully you make them scared too.


You forget that a person who is willing to take his own life for his beliefs CANT be scared Eh?

Quote:
Perhaps the same exact way all the other religions and ethnic groups have? Naw, that would be to simple, right?


How did they do it? (no rethoric implied whatsoever)

Quote:
So now we're talking about the whole of the world's poor are we? I don't notice any Africans killing senselessly in order to gain acceptance and equality (well, other than internal genocide, but that's for other reasons), yet there is certainly poverty there. Perhaps the Arabs could learn from them?


Ok...thats fair enough I guess - Arabs SHOULD try to behave more like africans (though egyptians did burn down the danish embacy in egypt, around christmas time)

Quote:
Another human tendancy: putting the blame on others. I can understand a theif forced by poverty to steal, but a vandal could be stopped by just a little application of morality with no harm to himself.


True, but then why are there vandals? - Because people are envious, jealous and attention seeking, and if your poor, this *may* result in you doing something which isnt moral. I'm not trying to justify it, I'm just saying that there is crime. It may seem pointless and stupid to educated and reasonably well of people like you and me (I'm making an assumption here, please correct me if im wrong), but its still there, so we can do nothing but try to fix it.

Quote:
Not even that crack about educating me about the geographical location of Denmark?


It wasnt meant as a joke, as i explained above, and i actually believe that your alowed to believe what you want, if its not racist. I also have many good american friends and believe that nobody should question the american government, for anything appart from the wars, as it is your choice - thats the essence of democracy Smile

Quote:
Perhaps not, but that's the fault of bad intelligence and Iraqis not cooperating with weapons inspectors.


How can you coopperate, if you dont have any Weapons of mass destructions to show? Also, if they actually had WOMD, they wouldnt want to show them - as america would definately have kicked their behinds...

If your intelligence isnt good enough to be certain, then i dont think you should start a war with another country.

Quote:
We did that when we drove Hitler back to Germany, now its your turn. Go have Denmark end the conflict.


If denmark had the power I'm 100% certain that there wouldn't have been a war on Iraq. Now that there has been a war, I dont know how to end it - thats up to USA.

and PLEASE dont bring up world war two - thats more than fourty years before i was born, and i hardly think that the american government, or indeed the american people are the same as then.

But thanks anyway Smile
ocalhoun
LukeakaDanish wrote:
Quote:
No, the goal in war is to defeat the other side, that's why civilized countries have such things as surrender.


By that america can take over pretty much any country because they have a stronger military - and the country isnt allowed to put up a struggle Eh?

They are allowed, but it would be more sensible to surrender.
LukeakaDanish wrote:


Quote:
They have, just not in the direction you'd like: they decided to have peace by the eradication of their enimies, not the placation of their ememies.


Hitting back just ISNT turning the other cheek - do you think it is?

No, I don't. Did I ever say America was going to turn the other cheek? Dispite the dominance of christianity turning the other cheek is not the American way. (mainly because of seperation of church and state) What was the impetus to join in WWII? In Europe: a U-boat sinks a cruise liner with Americans on board. In the pacific: Japan attacks US soil. Therefore, had turning the other cheek and ignoring potential threats been America's policy, Denmark would still be under the control of Nazi Germany today.
LukeakaDanish wrote:


America will never be able to kill their way into the hearts of the middle east, and therefor they will never win the war on terrorism.

Somehow I suspect we could never coax our way into their hearts either, besides by making the state religion of the USA Islam.
LukeakaDanish wrote:


If they dont try to make peace the war with the less well of countries will last forever. Thats why I ask for them to take the first steps.

Nothing lasts forever. At the current rate of attrition who will run out of fighters first? It may end up like vietnam, but sooner or later the war will end. For that matter the world will eventually end.
LukeakaDanish wrote:


Quote:
Oh, now that's fair. If the muslims want equality, why don't they start by applying equal moral standards to themselves?


The degree of equality present in america today (im talking sexual equality and capitalism) is only there because americans are educated people, and have learned to treat each other as equals some time in the late ninteenth century - if we try to get muslim countries out of the middle ages and into the modern times, then maybe they too will be able to realize that they need to treat their women propperly.

I'm not referring to equal rights (although that would be a good improvement over there). I'm refering to the double standard. How can they be expected to be treated as equals if they do not treat others the same way?
LukeakaDanish wrote:

Quote:
I know precisely where Denmark is, thank you.
*Tries very, very hard to not indulge in personal flaming*


I'm sorry that you where offended by that - it wasnt meant as a joke on americans IN ANY WAY, but was rather a sign of me knowing that denmark is a very small country, and therefor not neccesarily known by everyone (the message was for anybody else reading this topic aswel)

Well, I suppose I might have overreacted to that, but it seemed to be a subtle slight to my intelligence.
LukeakaDanish wrote:

Quote:
And the Iraq war shows that that is only needed when there is strife between two nuclear powers; or has the Iraq war let to nuclear destruction without me noticing?


America still hasent found any WOMD to my knowledge - so iraq arent a nuclear power. Also my point was that the rich world should agree on what wars should be fought, just so that we dont have to get *mad* at each other (even against my intentions, you are very mad at me Crying or Very sad)

But what's the point of being a sovreign nation if you have to do what all the other nations tell you? That's moving dangerously close to global domination.
LukeakaDanish wrote:


Quote:
No not all muslims are terrorists, but I find it highly improbable that all of those 'civilians' actualy were innocent, seeing as how the enemy disguises themselves as civilians.


Did you think that argument over propeprly?

Here's why I dont like it:

1: If its 'ok' to kill civilians just because they *might* be terrorists, then essentially America shouldnt bomb military targets with small precise misilies, they should just throw a thousand nuclear bombs on all countries in the world, as essentially, and person could be a terrorist.

No, that's not OK, but it is OK to kill terrorists that might be civilians. (Given the situation, in which there is no better choice.)
LukeakaDanish wrote:

2: If you shoot a terrorist diguised as a civilian, you will surely find out that he's a terrorist after you've killed him and therefor NOT count his death as a civilian death

Unless, of course you blow him to bits from the air, which is the prefered method.
LukeakaDanish wrote:


3: Seen as there was probably at least one military casualty of 9/11, your argument essentially justifies terrorist from making these attacks

Possibly (through technicality). But I'd like to see you convince anyone that the world trade center was a military target. (The pentagon, on the other hand...) Which reminds me, how can you expect us to turn the other cheek when these people directly attacked the offices of the highest ranking military officers in the US forces? That's not a slap on the cheek, that's a knife in the back.
LukeakaDanish wrote:

(i still dont believe they did)

Oh, so 9/11 wasn't caused by terrorists? (Let me tell you a secret: you're right; those planes were taken over by the US government, not terrorists. It's all a big conspiracy! *sarcasm*)
LukeakaDanish wrote:

Quote:
You don't, you fly in and kill a few thousand terrorists hiding behind 50,000 civilians.


1: I dont believe terrorist where behind the 9/11 attacks.
That is an amazing statement! Who was behind the 9/11 attacks if not terrorists?
LukeakaDanish wrote:

I was again urge you to watch loose change, as linked in my above post - its NOT liberal in any way, its just a random person who wants some answers from his government. He presents some facts and then asks why - he doesnt jump to any conclusions, which arent COMPLETELY justified by undoubtable facts.

Sure... and the facts he presents are chosen completely arbitrarily with no bias, right? And certainly nobody's response was left off if they had a good point that the makers didn't agree with, right?
LukeakaDanish wrote:

2: Well...when you attack Iraq or Afghanistan, where else can the Iraqee and Afghan people hide, than among their own people? Should they meet you in an open war they would obviously loose?

Rather than hide behind the civilians and cause them pain, yes they should come out and fight. If the odds are too terribly against them, they should surrender. The terrorists are as much behind those civilian deaths as America is, if for no other reason than the terrorists could have saved them all by surrendering.
LukeakaDanish wrote:

Quote:
You make them mad yes, but hopefully you make them scared too.


You forget that a person who is willing to take his own life for his beliefs CANT be scared Eh?
They surely aren't all that fanatical, expecialy the leaders.

Quote:
Perhaps the same exact way all the other religions and ethnic groups have? Naw, that would be to simple, right?

LukeakaDanish wrote:

How did they do it? (no rethoric implied whatsoever)

How the 'ell should I know, but they did it, and as far as I know, they didn't do it by threatening or killing those who disagreed with them.
LukeakaDanish wrote:

Quote:
So now we're talking about the whole of the world's poor are we? I don't notice any Africans killing senselessly in order to gain acceptance and equality (well, other than internal genocide, but that's for other reasons), yet there is certainly poverty there. Perhaps the Arabs could learn from them?


Ok...thats fair enough I guess - Arabs SHOULD try to behave more like africans (though egyptians did burn down the danish embacy in egypt, around christmas time)

I suppose it wouldn't be polite to mention the fact that Egypt and many of the countries of that area of Africa are at least partialy under muslim influence...
LukeakaDanish wrote:


Quote:
Another human tendancy: putting the blame on others. I can understand a theif forced by poverty to steal, but a vandal could be stopped by just a little application of morality with no harm to himself.


True, but then why are there vandals? - Because people are envious, jealous and attention seeking, and if your poor, this *may* result in you doing something which isnt moral. I'm not trying to justify it, I'm just saying that there is crime. It may seem pointless and stupid to educated and reasonably well of people like you and me (I'm making an assumption here, please correct me if im wrong), but its still there, so we can do nothing but try to fix it.

And we would fix it how?
LukeakaDanish wrote:


Quote:
Perhaps not, but that's the fault of bad intelligence and Iraqis not cooperating with weapons inspectors.


How can you coopperate, if you dont have any Weapons of mass destructions to show? Also, if they actually had WOMD, they wouldnt want to show them - as america would definately have kicked their behinds...

Nothing that obvious, but they often delayed inspectors, which made people think that they may have been playing for time to move the weapons out. Iraq is a big place; if the weapons were buiried somewhere we might never find them.
LukeakaDanish wrote:


If your intelligence isnt good enough to be certain, then i dont think you should start a war with another country.

Intelligence is never certain. If is was, we could fight the entire war without a single civilain casualty.
LukeakaDanish wrote:


Quote:
We did that when we drove Hitler back to Germany, now its your turn. Go have Denmark end the conflict.


If denmark had the power I'm 100% certain that there wouldn't have been a war on Iraq. Now that there has been a war, I dont know how to end it - thats up to USA.

And we are ending it. Just not in the way or at the speed you would prefer. But since you've no better ideas on how to win (seems like nobody does), we'll just have to use the plan we've got, which is: 'kill all the terrorists'.
LukeakaDanish wrote:

and PLEASE dont bring up world war two - thats more than fourty years before i was born, and i hardly think that the american government, or indeed the american people are the same as then.

The government: yes, that was basicly the same. The people: Slightly more moral than now.
As for how long ago it was, do you think history dosn't matter? At the end of that war, the Jews were given back their homeland, which is one of the ongoing things that the muslims are outraged about.
As for it's pertinance, just think how things might be different had that war gone different... I wonder how someone like Hitler would have handled muslim exremists...
LukeakaDanish
Quote:
They are allowed, but it would be more sensible to surrender.


It would be VERY sencible.

Honour is one of the most important words in their comunities, so im not sure how well that would go down.

They should surrender though - the world would be a GREAT place if the weaker side always did - however we would probably have to rename the world america Wink

Quote:
No, I don't. Did I ever say America was going to turn the other cheek? Dispite the dominance of christianity turning the other cheek is not the American way. (mainly because of seperation of church and state) What was the impetus to join in WWII? In Europe: a U-boat sinks a cruise liner with Americans on board. In the pacific: Japan attacks US soil. Therefore, had turning the other cheek and ignoring potential threats been America's policy, Denmark would still be under the control of Nazi Germany today.


I still dont like you bringing up WWII - its far too long ago, and saddam was hardly going to end up a threat to the entire world if not bombed.

Ok - you do kindof have an argument here - of course "good men" must do something to stop "evil men", however I am still of the conviction that the middle-east must be helped out of its crisis rather than bombed out.

Quote:
Somehow I suspect we could never coax our way into their hearts either, besides by making the state religion of the USA Islam.


Given the wars which the US has had with these countries it will now be VERY difficult and take VERY long time, however I dont think it's impossible.

I also think it could have been prevented if america had chosen NOT to revenge 9/11 (which i still believe they caused themselves (you get the point Wink))

Quote:
Nothing lasts forever. At the current rate of attrition who will run out of fighters first? It may end up like vietnam, but sooner or later the war will end. For that matter the world will eventually end.


I, for one, hope that the world will last till it is devoured by the sun, or something like that eventually happens. Thats why i bother with this kind of argument - I hope to prevent the premature ending of the world.

Sure - there will eventually be peace in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in that sence america will have won the war, however before that happens a lot more people will get mad at america, which will mean more terrorist attacks and the circle will be complete - so in that sence I dont belive it will end - certainly not in my/your lifetime (unless the oil runs out or something ridiculous like that)

Quote:
I'm not referring to equal rights (although that would be a good improvement over there). I'm refering to the double standard. How can they be expected to be treated as equals if they do not treat others the same way?


As they are the less well of part of the "equation", were really the only ones who can ensure equal opportunities, respect etc.

They can hardly be said to respect america, so i guess you have a point there, however, i still think america should be fighting for their respect, instead of fighting to get rid of those who dont respect america.

Quote:
But what's the point of being a sovreign nation if you have to do what all the other nations tell you? That's moving dangerously close to global domination.


I'm not saying you cant do what you want (Iraq war shows you can), I'm just scared of a nuclear war or something similar - what happens when china is as large a military and economic power as the US, and dont uphold the laws that america expect them to? WWIII? - thats why I call for a united rich part of the world - so that we can talk through conflicts and save lives.

Quote:
No, that's not OK, but it is OK to kill terrorists that might be civilians. (Given the situation, in which there is no better choice.)


Of course. I still think 48.000 seems a little careless though.

Quote:
Unless, of course you blow him to bits from the air, which is the prefered method.


If you blow him to pieces from the air, then you definately think he's a terrorist, and therefor he wouldnt be in the count for civilian death would he?

Quote:
Possibly (through technicality). But I'd like to see you convince anyone that the world trade center was a military target. (The pentagon, on the other hand...) Which reminds me, how can you expect us to turn the other cheek when these people directly attacked the offices of the highest ranking military officers in the US forces? That's not a slap on the cheek, that's a knife in the back.


We're never going to agree the slightest, as I dont *still* dont believe that terrorist started 9/11, however lets just say I do, for the sake of the argument:

Sure. Your right. They hit america right in its heart. Turning the other cheek to that CANT be expected. Remember how not NEARLY as many people where mad because of the afghan war? Thats because attacking afghanistan was justified.

Iraq on the other hand, was not as well justified, and america had definately used up their revenge tokens. Saddam was no more behind 9/11 that George Bush supports Hilter Wink

Quote:
That is an amazing statement! Who was behind the 9/11 attacks if not terrorists?


From the facts I have seen, it seems most probable that the american government where behind it, but I would never claim to know - seen as the us gov. are being so secretive about many elements of what happended on 9/11.

Quote:
Sure... and the facts he presents are chosen completely arbitrarily with no bias, right? And certainly nobody's response was left off if they had a good point that the makers didn't agree with, right?


If something is disproved, I'm very certain it would instantly be removed from the movie. - It cant be biased seen as its not representing a view, but just a load of facts, which make the official explanation seem impossible - and I once again urge you to watch it - you dont have to belive ANYTHING the movie says - just like I read what George Bush says although I dont agree with it - staying informed is (as you know...) important to finding the *real* truth.

Quote:
Rather than hide behind the civilians and cause them pain, yes they should come out and fight. If the odds are too terribly against them, they should surrender. The terrorists are as much behind those civilian deaths as America is, if for no other reason than the terrorists could have saved them all by surrendering.


Hm...in a certain sence you are right however, as I said above, this would essentially make america the rules of the world - which I dont think you can expect anybody to put up with.

Quote:
hey surely aren't all that fanatical, expecialy the leaders.


Your right, however apparantly only a few people (aorund 50 or so) where ever involved with 9/11 - so it doesnt really take that many - and out of 1 Billion (that how many muslims there are approx. as far as i remember), finding 50 nutcases shouldnt be *that* difficult.

Quote:
How the 'ell should I know, but they did it, and as far as I know, they didn't do it by threatening or killing those who disagreed with them.


Good point, of course, however most other cultures didnt have to look at all the inequality of the world every day through the media. I'm not saying that justifies anything, but I am saying it could be a good reason.

Quote:
I suppose it wouldn't be polite to mention the fact that Egypt and many of the countries of that area of Africa are at least partialy under muslim influence...


Sorry about the rubbish example. You where - Africans are well behaved Smile

Quote:
And we would fix it how?


If the poor people wherent poor they wouldnt commit crimes like vandalisms. I dont intend this to sound socialistic at all (I'm not a socialist incase you wondered) - the kind of sharing im talking about is just helping these countries become 20th century (I dont mean 21st century, no) or even 19th century, as right now many things in their society are closer to 14th century. (which incidently would explain them attacking other people because of their religion - we did that too!)

Quote:
Nothing that obvious, but they often delayed inspectors, which made people think that they may have been playing for time to move the weapons out. Iraq is a big place; if the weapons were buiried somewhere we might never find them.


Well...they managed to find Saddam, and I think he's smaller than even the smallest nuclear misile, and they practically dug him under the sand of a desert!

Ok...so you have a point - there may still turn out to be nuclear warheads somewhere - my responce to that is: How can we allow ANY countries to have nuclear misiles - they definately CANT be used to hit military targets. Why should even france be allowed them? or Britain? or Isreal? or USA?

(Denmark cant afford them Wink)

Quote:
And we are ending it. Just not in the way or at the speed you would prefer. But since you've no better ideas on how to win (seems like nobody does), we'll just have to use the plan we've got, which is: 'kill all the terrorists'.


Hey - I never blamed america for not ending the wars fast enough - it cant really be helped can it?

I just hope "kill all the terrorists" doesnt start another war, because I truthfully killing a terrorist makes two other muslims terrorists - and by that logic there will be war forever.

Quote:
The government: yes, that was basicly the same. The people: Slightly more moral than now.
As for how long ago it was, do you think history dosn't matter? At the end of that war, the Jews were given back their homeland, which is one of the ongoing things that the muslims are outraged about.
As for it's pertinance, just think how things might be different had that war gone different... I wonder how someone like Hitler would have handled muslim exremists...


Hm...it seems like the whole WWII thing has come up anyway...let me quote wiki agian then:

Quote:

Allies Total dead: 50,000,000
Axis Total dead: 12,000,000


My problem is that even if EVERY terrorist out there tried to fly a plane into a building, not that many people would die. - and the effect of joining WWII was to ending a war - the effect of starting a war with Iraq was - well starting a war Eh?


I dont have time to check back on this for the next day or so, but rest assured I will be back to continue this intriguing conversation, if you reply Smile - Although I dont really feel that either of our views have changed to much since this started, I do still think its very interesting having this discussion.
odinstag
Let's clear something up.

When you show people pictures of different people and ask them to pic out the American, they almost unfailingly choose the picture of the white person. Don't matter what country that person pictured is really from.

How do I know?

I tested it.

So it doesn't matter what the liberals say. When people are hating Americans, they are really just hating Whitey.

The rest is just propoganda.
nopaniers
I love this game: Pick the tourists' country of origin. It's fun to play in foreign countries - preferably while sitting somewhere comfortable with a cool drink or some local food.

Generally I find shoes (and fashion in general) are the best way to tell apart different nationalities if you can't hear them. American tourists generally also travel in groups, and are often fatter than your average European tourist (although Germany and Netherlands would come close). Of course the easiest way is the accent... and another annoying habbit of theirs is to compare everything (and I mean everything) to things in the USA... "Blarney Castle is okay, but Virginia has nicer buildings." As soon as an American opens their mouth it's obvious where they come from, and when they take the "Expect everyone to speak English, and if they don't understand SAY IT LOUDER" approach - also a favourite among English - everyone knows where they come from. Americans, increasingly, like gadgets, but nowhere as much as the Japanese or Singaporeans. And where an Asian guy will take photos of his wife, or the group who they're travelling with, Americans aren't so concerned - more concerned at seeing all the sights mentioned in the guidebook.

Of course there are many exceptions to these rules. Smile
twinknation
I'm not America
ocalhoun
LukeakaDanish wrote:
Quote:
They are allowed, but it would be more sensible to surrender.


It would be VERY sencible.

And yet they don't do it; are you sure they're intelligent?
LukeakaDanish wrote:


Honour is one of the most important words in their comunities, so im not sure how well that would go down.

Speaking of things that need to change...
LukeakaDanish wrote:


They should surrender though - the world would be a GREAT place if the weaker side always did - however we would probably have to rename the world america Wink

Works for me.
LukeakaDanish wrote:


Quote:
No, I don't. Did I ever say America was going to turn the other cheek? Dispite the dominance of christianity turning the other cheek is not the American way. (mainly because of seperation of church and state) What was the impetus to join in WWII? In Europe: a U-boat sinks a cruise liner with Americans on board. In the pacific: Japan attacks US soil. Therefore, had turning the other cheek and ignoring potential threats been America's policy, Denmark would still be under the control of Nazi Germany today.


I still dont like you bringing up WWII - its far too long ago, and saddam was hardly going to end up a threat to the entire world if not bombed.

How long ago was it? 50 years? That's only a few decades! People who fought in WWII are still alive! How recent does something have to be in order to be relevant? Do you really think you can find this 'real truth' you're looking for without looking more than a few decades into the past?
Why can't people these days look beyond their own lifespans?

And as for wether Saddam would be a threat:
1: we thought he was working on chemical/biological/nuclear weapons.
2: he established a good track record of respecting other nations by invading Kuwait.
LukeakaDanish wrote:

Ok - you do kindof have an argument here - of course "good men" must do something to stop "evil men", however I am still of the conviction that the middle-east must be helped out of its crisis rather than bombed out.

Perhaps, but it's hard to help those who would rather take your life than take your advice.
LukeakaDanish wrote:


Quote:
Somehow I suspect we could never coax our way into their hearts either, besides by making the state religion of the USA Islam.


Given the wars which the US has had with these countries it will now be VERY difficult and take VERY long time, however I dont think it's impossible.

We made peace with Russia, China, and to a lesser extent, Cuba quite well without making many concessions to them... So perhaps once the Arab world gets around to realizing the dark ages are over, we can have peace...
LukeakaDanish wrote:


I also think it could have been prevented if america had chosen NOT to revenge 9/11
Muslims hating us could be avoided by ignoring clear proof that muslims hate us? You have an interesting idea of causality.
LukeakaDanish wrote:

(which i still believe they caused themselves (you get the point Wink))

So, the 9/11 hijakers were what? CIA operatives? I get it; it was a test of national security that went a little too far right? Or was it something more sinister; such as a vast conspiracy to make Americans hate islam?
I deny both of these by the level of stupidity of the government:
Couldn't be a test: That's too stupid even for the government.
Couldn't be a conspiracy: The government's too stupid to succesfully cover up something like that. Whenever the government tries a cover-up it usualy goes foul (ex. Iran-Contra arms deal).
LukeakaDanish wrote:


Quote:
Nothing lasts forever. At the current rate of attrition who will run out of fighters first? It may end up like vietnam, but sooner or later the war will end. For that matter the world will eventually end.


I, for one, hope that the world will last till it is devoured by the sun, or something like that eventually happens. Thats why i bother with this kind of argument - I hope to prevent the premature ending of the world.

By preventing war? Wars don't end the world. Even a full thermonuclear WWIII would leave a few scattered people alive; mainly in Africa and South America: why would anyone waste their nukes on those who are not a threat?
LukeakaDanish wrote:


Sure - there will eventually be peace in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in that sence america will have won the war, however before that happens a lot more people will get mad at america, which will mean more terrorist attacks and the circle will be complete - so in that sence I dont belive it will end - certainly not in my/your lifetime (unless the oil runs out or something ridiculous like that)

And ending after our lifetimes is unacceptable? Again, why can't people look past their own lifespans these days?
"The past has no effect on the present and the future has no effect on the present." <-- Do you agree with that statement?
LukeakaDanish wrote:


Quote:
I'm not referring to equal rights (although that would be a good improvement over there). I'm refering to the double standard. How can they be expected to be treated as equals if they do not treat others the same way?


As they are the less well of part of the "equation", were really the only ones who can ensure equal opportunities, respect etc.

So we should respect them although they do not respect us? That's your idea of equality?
LukeakaDanish wrote:


They can hardly be said to respect america, so i guess you have a point there, however, i still think america should be fighting for their respect, instead of fighting to get rid of those who dont respect america.

'dont respect America'? That's putting it a little lightly, wouldn't you think? I'd put it closer to 'Burning, Suicidal, Fanatical Hatred'.
I suppose a great way for America to gain Arab respect would be to invade Isriel, right?
LukeakaDanish wrote:


Quote:
But what's the point of being a sovreign nation if you have to do what all the other nations tell you? That's moving dangerously close to global domination.


I'm not saying you cant do what you want (Iraq war shows you can), I'm just scared of a nuclear war or something similar - what happens when china is as large a military and economic power as the US,
China has less to do with this than WWII does, yet you dismiss WWII as irrevelant...
LukeakaDanish wrote:
and dont uphold the laws that america expect them to? WWIII?

Yes, but China would have to do something really horrible, and China has been behaving well recently. Besides, the USA could devestate China with a few economic sanctions. (But then where would walmart buy their products?)
LukeakaDanish wrote:
- thats why I call for a united rich part of the world - so that we can talk through conflicts and save lives.

Yeah, just look at how successfull the middle-east peace talks are...
LukeakaDanish wrote:

Quote:
No, that's not OK, but it is OK to kill terrorists that might be civilians. (Given the situation, in which there is no better choice.)


Of course. I still think 48.000 seems a little careless though.

Perhaps, but when your'e manning a checkpoint and a car is refusing to stop far enough away, and three checkpoints this week have been wiped out by suicide car bombs, you start to think 'better safe than sorry'.
LukeakaDanish wrote:


Quote:
Unless, of course you blow him to bits from the air, which is the prefered method.


If you blow him to pieces from the air, then you definately think he's a terrorist, and therefor he wouldnt be in the count for civilian death would he?

That depends who's doing the counting, the US military (very few civilian deaths), the US media (a lot of civilian deaths), or Iraq (nearly all were civilian). Do you not think that the terrorists deliberately hold meetings in civilian targets like schools and hospitals specificly because the US would loose face by attacking them there?
LukeakaDanish wrote:


Quote:
Possibly (through technicality). But I'd like to see you convince anyone that the world trade center was a military target. (The pentagon, on the other hand...) Which reminds me, how can you expect us to turn the other cheek when these people directly attacked the offices of the highest ranking military officers in the US forces? That's not a slap on the cheek, that's a knife in the back.


We're never going to agree the slightest, as I dont *still* dont believe that terrorist started 9/11, however lets just say I do, for the sake of the argument:

Deliberately flying a fully loaded passenger plane into a civilian building is an act of terrorisim right?
Now lets define a terrorist as one who commits terrorisim. Can we accept that?
Therefore we can conclude that those who crashed the planes into the buildings were commiting terrorisim, therefore, they were terrorists, therefore, terrorists were behind 9/11. I think that's logical enough.
LukeakaDanish wrote:

Sure. Your right. They hit america right in its heart. Turning the other cheek to that CANT be expected. Remember how not NEARLY as many people where mad because of the afghan war? Thats because attacking afghanistan was justified.

We agree on something!
LukeakaDanish wrote:


Iraq on the other hand, was not as well justified,
No contest on that.
LukeakaDanish wrote:
and america had definately used up their revenge tokens.
No contest on that either.
LukeakaDanish wrote:
Saddam was no more behind 9/11 that George Bush supports Hilter Wink
Still no contest with that sentance.
However, I think you forget that the reason for invading Iraq was not revenge. It was to take out a growing threat before it became very dangerous. Wether or not the threat was growing was confused in the intelligence, which is probably what we have to blame for the war.
LukeakaDanish wrote:


Quote:
That is an amazing statement! Who was behind the 9/11 attacks if not terrorists?


From the facts I have seen, it seems most probable that the american government where behind it, but I would never claim to know - seen as the us gov. are being so secretive about many elements of what happended on 9/11.
What evidence, if any at all, do you have to support that statement?
LukeakaDanish wrote:


Quote:
Sure... and the facts he presents are chosen completely arbitrarily with no bias, right? And certainly nobody's response was left off if they had a good point that the makers didn't agree with, right?


If something is disproved, I'm very certain it would instantly be removed from the movie.
You trust the people who made it why?
LukeakaDanish wrote:
- It cant be biased seen as its not representing a view, but just a load of facts,
All things represent a view; some do it overtly, as I do now, while some do it covertly by subtle misinformation and censorship of those who disagree fluently and logicly, while putting an emphasis on those that disagree inarticulately and illogicly.
LukeakaDanish wrote:
which make the official explanation seem impossible
There's you're bias.
LukeakaDanish wrote:
- and I once again urge you to watch it - you dont have to belive ANYTHING the movie says - just like I read what George Bush says although I dont agree with it - staying informed is (as you know...) important to finding the *real* truth.

1: I don't want to squander my limited bandwidth.
2: I dont' want to waste my time. (wich would be excessive considering the limitaitons of my bandwidth.)
I very rarely download video clips. Do you have a text transcript of this movie? I'd love to point out some of the holes in it for you.
LukeakaDanish wrote:


Quote:
Rather than hide behind the civilians and cause them pain, yes they should come out and fight. If the odds are too terribly against them, they should surrender. The terrorists are as much behind those civilian deaths as America is, if for no other reason than the terrorists could have saved them all by surrendering.


Hm...in a certain sence you are right however, as I said above, this would essentially make america the rules of the world - which I dont think you can expect anybody to put up with.

America already rules the world, and you have pax Americana, as long ago you had pax Romana. (Peace enforced by America, as opposed to peace enforced by Rome.) America and ancient Rome have a lot in common. You basicly have three options (as a nation):
1: Behave yourself relitively well and avoid notice.
2: Misbehave, fight, and die.
3: Misbehave, and surrender
By all means #1 is preferable, while #3 is acceptable, but #2 is not very nice for you or us.
LukeakaDanish wrote:


Quote:
hey surely aren't all that fanatical, expecialy the leaders.


Your right, however apparantly only a few people (aorund 50 or so) where ever involved with 9/11 - so it doesnt really take that many - and out of 1 Billion (that how many muslims there are approx. as far as i remember), finding 50 nutcases shouldnt be *that* difficult.

Finding the nutcases is difficult, why do you think the war is still going? If finding the nutcases were easy, they could be killed easily.
LukeakaDanish wrote:


Quote:
How the 'ell should I know, but they did it, and as far as I know, they didn't do it by threatening or killing those who disagreed with them.


Good point, of course, however most other cultures didnt have to look at all the inequality of the world every day through the media.
Now we get to the real cause of the problem: the media.
LukeakaDanish wrote:
I'm not saying that justifies anything, but I am saying it could be a good reason.
Exactly. Instead of attacking terrorists, the US might consider attacking the media. (seriously, that's a good idea.) You see, the media is playing both sides agianst eachother in order to raise their ratings and make more money. They tell Arabs that America hates them, and they tell Americans that America is a sovriegnity-killing civilian-eating monster. For some reason this causes ratings to rise, therefore they keep doing it.
LukeakaDanish wrote:


Quote:
I suppose it wouldn't be polite to mention the fact that Egypt and many of the countries of that area of Africa are at least partialy under muslim influence...


Sorry about the rubbish example. You where - Africans are well behaved Smile
Well, except for the occasional genocide or tribal warfare, yes, but that's a different matter and should be saved for a different discussion.
LukeakaDanish wrote:


Quote:
And we would fix it how?


If the poor people wherent poor they wouldnt commit crimes like vandalisms. I dont intend this to sound socialistic at all (I'm not a socialist incase you wondered) - the kind of sharing im talking about is just helping these countries become 20th century (I dont mean 21st century, no) or even 19th century, as right now many things in their society are closer to 14th century. (which incidently would explain them attacking other people because of their religion - we did that too!)
So now, we have to help them out of the dark ages... Why is their cultural backwardness our responsibility? I don't recollect that anybody helped us out of the dark ages...
LukeakaDanish wrote:

Quote:
Nothing that obvious, but they often delayed inspectors, which made people think that they may have been playing for time to move the weapons out. Iraq is a big place; if the weapons were buiried somewhere we might never find them.


Well...they managed to find Saddam, and I think he's smaller than even the smallest nuclear misile, and they practically dug him under the sand of a desert!
Yes, but Saddam needed food, water, and other necessities, whereas you can bury a prototype nuke or a new chemical agent in the most remote spot you can find, and not visit it for 50 years, and still be able to salvage it later, wheras if Saddam had the same treatment, they would have done America's job for us.
LukeakaDanish wrote:


Ok...so you have a point - there may still turn out to be nuclear warheads somewhere - my responce to that is: How can we allow ANY countries to have nuclear misiles - they definately CANT be used to hit military targets. Why should even france be allowed them? or Britain? or Isreal? or USA?
Those counries (with the possible exception of France) are responsible and peacefull (at least when it comes to nukes). What we don't want is nukes in a country that can elect a terrorist group as it's governing body or be taken over by terrorists or have nukes stolen by terrorists.
LukeakaDanish wrote:

(Denmark cant afford them Wink)
Let's start up a charity foundation raising money so that Denmark can afford nukes. Our slogan: 'Nukes for Denmark!'
LukeakaDanish wrote:


Quote:
And we are ending it. Just not in the way or at the speed you would prefer. But since you've no better ideas on how to win (seems like nobody does), we'll just have to use the plan we've got, which is: 'kill all the terrorists'.


Hey - I never blamed america for not ending the wars fast enough - it cant really be helped can it?
That's my whole point!
LukeakaDanish wrote:


I just hope "kill all the terrorists" doesnt start another war, because I truthfully killing a terrorist makes two other muslims terrorists - and by that logic there will be war forever.
Not forever; you forget that there is a limited supply of muslims. You could argue that they replace themselves fast enough, but if the number of them that become terrorists increases exponentialy as you state, I doubt they'll keep up.
LukeakaDanish wrote:


Quote:
The government: yes, that was basicly the same. The people: Slightly more moral than now.
As for how long ago it was, do you think history dosn't matter? At the end of that war, the Jews were given back their homeland, which is one of the ongoing things that the muslims are outraged about.
As for it's pertinance, just think how things might be different had that war gone different... I wonder how someone like Hitler would have handled muslim exremists...


Hm...it seems like the whole WWII thing has come up anyway...let me quote wiki agian then:

Quote:

Allies Total dead: 50,000,000
Axis Total dead: 12,000,000

And yet you complain about 48000 dead. Can we please get some perspective here?
LukeakaDanish wrote:


My problem is that even if EVERY terrorist out there tried to fly a plane into a building, not that many people would die.
I think we'd run out of planes first, but point taken. However, should terrorists get hold of nukes and start crashing them into buildings, it would be a BIG problem.
LukeakaDanish wrote:
- and the effect of joining WWII was to ending a war - the effect of starting a war with Iraq was - well starting a war Eh?
I'd say it was preventing a worse war, at least that's how it seemed when the war started.
LukeakaDanish wrote:



I dont have time to check back on this for the next day or so, but rest assured I will be back to continue this intriguing conversation, if you reply Smile - Although I dont really feel that either of our views have changed to much since this started, I do still think its very interesting having this discussion.

That goes for me as well. For some reason, I enjoy arguing pointlessly with people who have less of a chance of changing their minds on the subject at hand than they have of spontaniously bursting into flame (which happens to someone in the world about once every 70 years).
Bikerman
Quote:

You can keep your liberal propaganda to yourself, thank you very much. Myself, I don't care if they're guilty of those particular crimes or not, but I'm sure they do have blood on their hands.
So do most, if not all states. This is the morality of the bankrupt. Punish who we like for whatever, they are bound to have done something. Does the word fascism not occur ?
Quote:

LukeakaDanish wrote:

also the theoretic world police (NATO) didnt give a green-light for the war in iraq.

Does NATO rule the world? Since when does an independant nation have to ask permission to go to war?
Since diplomacy and international law started, pretty much. The common interpretation of this complex area is that attack via UN order or attack in self defense were the only two permissable reasons for attacking another state. I know the US has long held that in contempt but it was thought that even it agreed the basic principles.
Quote:

People killed in 11. sep: 2,973
People killed in iraq and afghanistan: 43,387 to 48,174

People that would have been killed by those 48,174 in Iraq and Afghanistan if 9/11 went unpunished: ?
LukeakaDanish wrote:


...I think i proved my point.

What point is that ? That an unknown number of people would have died had the US not invaded Iraq ? Well, hard to argue with that. Iraq being punished is a bit more problematic. For what ? It had nothing to do with 9/11 as even the most supportive sources now admit.
You deliberately miss the central points - that Iraq was not a threat, that it had no involvement with 9/11, that it had no terrorist problem, that is was so weak from sanctions it was a threat to nobody, not even locally, that since the invasion it has become a recruitment bonanza for militant islamist groups and that 48,000 people (at a low estimate) have died needlessly
Quote:
You actually listen to the commentators? The media is liberal, the commentators are a branch of the media; of course they don't take the idea of the US attacking terrorists in Iraq seriously.

So the media is biased and liberal. I wonder how such a biased media was so content to have it's reporters 'embedded' with the invading troops. We would have laughed at the Soviets doing that with TASS. It's not just the media that never bought into the terrorism link. It's most secret services in the west, your own CIA and FBI analysts and pretty much any body with knowledge in the area.
Quote:

Bikerman wrote:

More immoral than the terrorists ? It IS terrorism so I don't understand the question.

You backed yourself nicely into that trap: If what we're doing is terrorisim, then it is by definition exactly as moral as what the terrorists do. That puts us on equal moral grounds.
[/quote]
I backed into no trap at all. I have always held that what the US is doing is terrorism so I have no problem in conceding that the US is on the same moral ground as terrorists in general. If you think that represents some shift in my position, I'm puzzled.
Quote:

Not really, sometimes what is moral and what is right are two different things.

Not for me....the two mean pretty much the same thing to me.
Quote:

More like 48,000, but that's quibbling over details. The number of civilian deaths with a different course of action cannot be determined, so how can we know which number would be higher? Besides, as I said earlier, if the terrorists would stop attacking no more civilians would die, however, if the USA just pulled out and left, many more civilans would die in the countries' internal conflicts.

Well, the first point would be that there was no 'major' conflict in Iraq before the invasion. There is the ongoing Kurdish revolt but that was not particularly fierce or bloody at the time. We can be pretty sure, therefore, that 48,000 people would not have died had the status quo continued.
Also, IRAQ terrorists never did attack, so that point about them stopping is hard to understand.
Quote:
Again, you are not the one who has been kept from expressing an opinion, wether it is a desirable one or not, by fear. Apparently, you are still above that influence. You should just be glad that the USA has higher standards of freedom, or you would have legitimate reason to fear.

The US doesn't protect my freedom of speech so I don't accept your point.
I have never said anything about US standards of freedom of speech other than to acknowledge it is probably the best in the world. You seem to be the one who considers the media to be part of some liberal conspiracy of misinformation and deception. I merely point out things we know are true - that the news media all seemed happy to have their reporters embedded with the invading forces and that I find that personally difficult to justify in terms of proper standards of journalism.

Chris.
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
Quote:

You can keep your liberal propaganda to yourself, thank you very much. Myself, I don't care if they're guilty of those particular crimes or not, but I'm sure they do have blood on their hands.
So do most, if not all states. This is the morality of the bankrupt. Punish who we like for whatever, they are bound to have done something. Does the word fascism not occur ?

The morality of the bankrupt, eh? I'll accept that. Humans are naturaly 'bankrupt', as you put it.
Bikerman wrote:

Quote:

LukeakaDanish wrote:

also the theoretic world police (NATO) didnt give a green-light for the war in iraq.

Does NATO rule the world? Since when does an independant nation have to ask permission to go to war?
Since diplomacy and international law started, pretty much. The common interpretation of this complex area is that attack via UN order or attack in self defense were the only two permissable reasons for attacking another state. I know the US has long held that in contempt but it was thought that even it agreed the basic principles.

The problem is, there's no enforcement: if there was, the USA would also be fighting NATO, and probably winning.
Bikerman wrote:

Quote:

People killed in 11. sep: 2,973
People killed in iraq and afghanistan: 43,387 to 48,174

People that would have been killed by those 48,174 in Iraq and Afghanistan if 9/11 went unpunished: ?
LukeakaDanish wrote:


...I think i proved my point.

You misquote here: LukeakaDanish's comment there preceeded my own, it was not a reply to it.
Bikerman wrote:

What point is that ? That an unknown number of people would have died had the US not invaded Iraq ? Well, hard to argue with that. Iraq being punished is a bit more problematic. For what ? It had nothing to do with 9/11 as even the most supportive sources now admit.

That never was the real issue.
1: Iraq was (or at least seemed to be) developing weapons of mass destruction.
2: Iraq was home to many terrorist factions.
This was not a situation we liked; the likelyhood that the terrorists would obtain these weapons was unnaceptable, besides the risk of Iraq using them against us directly.
We've solved #1, though #2 remains the same.
Bikerman wrote:

You deliberately miss the central points - that Iraq was not a threat,

I do not accept that point based on the abovementioned #1 and #2.
Bikerman wrote:
that it had no involvement with 9/11,

Probably true, or at least very little involvement.
Bikerman wrote:
that it had no terrorist problem,

I dont' know of a single Arab country that dosn't have a terrorist problem.
Bikerman wrote:
that is was so weak from sanctions it was a threat to nobody,
Except itself, perhaps? Besides, factions of Iraq using WMD's on eachother probably wouldn't be healthy for neigboring countries either.
Bikerman wrote:
not even locally, that since the invasion it has become a recruitment bonanza for militant islamist groups and that 48,000 people (at a low estimate)
At the media's and the Iraqis' 'low' estimate. The USA never killed a singe civilian on purpose. (Note the trials ongoing for soldiers who violated that policy.) Every person the USA killed was, at least at the time, believed to be hostile. Again, mistakes in identifying hostiles/civilians could be eliminated by the terrorists operating overtly rather than covertly.
Bikerman wrote:
have died needlessly

Needlessly? Yes, but as I have stated earlier (which you didn't bother to quote, I notice) their deaths could have been prevented more easily by the terrorists than by the USA.
Bikerman wrote:

Quote:
You actually listen to the commentators? The media is liberal, the commentators are a branch of the media; of course they don't take the idea of the US attacking terrorists in Iraq seriously.

So the media is biased and liberal.

See; everybody knows it. Why do they keep the pretense of objectivity?
Bikerman wrote:
I wonder how such a biased media was so content to have it's reporters 'embedded' with the invading troops.

They got their reporters in the action where they could get video of tanks rolling along and soldiers shooting. Any major news station that declined this would not have that video and would have subseqently lower ratings (something they do not want).
Bikerman wrote:
We would have laughed at the Soviets doing that with TASS. It's not just the media that never bought into the terrorism link.

We know that Iraq had little or nothing to do with 9/11; why do you keep repeating it, as if that makes it more important?
Bikerman wrote:
It's most secret services in the west, your own CIA and FBI analysts and pretty much any body with knowledge in the area.
Quote:

Bikerman wrote:

More immoral than the terrorists ? It IS terrorism so I don't understand the question.

You backed yourself nicely into that trap: If what we're doing is terrorisim, then it is by definition exactly as moral as what the terrorists do. That puts us on equal moral grounds.

I backed into no trap at all.[/quote]
Why do you continuously assume I'm talking to you? That comment was directed at LukeakaDanish.
Bikerman wrote:
I have always held that what the US is doing is terrorism so I have no problem in conceding that the US is on the same moral ground as terrorists in general. If you think that represents some shift in my position, I'm puzzled.
It represents a (hopefull) shift in LukeakaDanish's position, as he(or she) was trying to put the terrorists on the moral high ground. And yes, what the USA is doing is terrorisim. It is terrorisim aimed at the terrorists, hoping to make them too afraid to attack us.
Bikerman wrote:

Quote:

Not really, sometimes what is moral and what is right are two different things.

Not for me....the two mean pretty much the same thing to me.

Well, people's ideas of morality and what is right vary wildly, so that's to be expected.
Bikerman wrote:

Quote:

More like 48,000, but that's quibbling over details. The number of civilian deaths with a different course of action cannot be determined, so how can we know which number would be higher? Besides, as I said earlier, if the terrorists would stop attacking no more civilians would die, however, if the USA just pulled out and left, many more civilans would die in the countries' internal conflicts.

Well, the first point would be that there was no 'major' conflict in Iraq before the invasion. There is the ongoing Kurdish revolt but that was not particularly fierce or bloody at the time. We can be pretty sure, therefore, that 48,000 people would not have died had the status quo continued.
Untill Saddam started using chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons on the Kurds, that is.
Bikerman wrote:

Also, IRAQ terrorists never did attack, so that point about them stopping is hard to understand.

Stopping the terrorists is a secondary goal, the primary goal was to remove Saddam and any possible WMD's. Only after that did we have problems with the terrorists there.
Bikerman wrote:

Quote:
Again, you are not the one who has been kept from expressing an opinion, wether it is a desirable one or not, by fear. Apparently, you are still above that influence. You should just be glad that the USA has higher standards of freedom, or you would have legitimate reason to fear.

The US doesn't protect my freedom of speech so I don't accept your point.

No, but it dosn't restrict it either, although it is probably within our power. This is expecialy good, as the US constitution does not give those rights to non-US-citizens, so you're free from fear of censorship by goodwill and integrity alone.
Bikerman wrote:

I have never said anything about US standards of freedom of speech other than to acknowledge it is probably the best in the world.

That is a false statement: just last sentance you said they do not apply to you. This is saying something (other than the second sentance) about it. Not that it matters much to our discussion, that is, but I enjoy pointing out logical errors.
Bikerman wrote:
You seem to be the one who considers the media to be part of some liberal conspiracy of misinformation and deception.

One of the ones, yes. I'm not alone. Also, it's not a conspiracy as such, because it was never organized (that I know of) it's just a culmination of nearly all the individual media people being liberaly biased.
Bikerman wrote:
I merely point out things we know are true - that the news media all seemed happy to have their reporters embedded with the invading forces
Of course they were; this caused them to make more money, which is even more important to them than advancing their agenda.
Bikerman wrote:
and that I find that personally difficult to justify in terms of proper standards of journalism.

Chris.

'the proper standards of journalisim' are the only thing keeping the media from being overt about it's liberal bias.


Also, about the civilian death toll:
1: Where are you getting that number, and how did it get to where you found it?
2: How many of those were killed by the USA, and how many were killed by the terrorists or Iraqi troops? Please state the source of that answer as well, if you can.
3: How many of those were killed while in the same building as a terrorist or Iraqi soldier? (Not counting the ones killed by them.)
I do not know the answers to these, but I think those answers might be enlightening.
Bikerman
ocalhoun wrote:

The problem is, there's no enforcement: if there was, the USA would also be fighting NATO, and probably winning.
The point remains that there was an international agreement which the US deliberately chose to violate. You asked since when an independant nation had to ask permission and I simply gave you the answer
Quote:
You misquote here: LukeakaDanish's comment there preceeded my own, it was not a reply to it.

My apologies, I would never deliberately do such a thing and I hope you will accept that.
Quote:

Bikerman wrote:

What point is that ? That an unknown number of people would have died had the US not invaded Iraq ? Well, hard to argue with that. Iraq being punished is a bit more problematic. For what ? It had nothing to do with 9/11 as even the most supportive sources now admit.

That never was the real issue.
1: Iraq was (or at least seemed to be) developing weapons of mass destruction.

Not true and was known to be untrue at the time. Once again I have to point out that there were weapons inspectors doing a job at the time and the US chose to preempt their report, ignore large parts of Blix's summary and force the inspectors out before they had finished.(1)
Quote:

2: Iraq was home to many terrorist factions.

Again a repetition of the Bush line and, so far as I can determin, completely untrue. Can you support the claim ?(2)
Quote:

This was not a situation we liked; the likelyhood that the terrorists would obtain these weapons was unnaceptable, besides the risk of Iraq using them against us directly.
We've solved #1, though #2 remains the same.

There were no weapons in the first place and the UK secret services were saying at the time that he might have some residuals from pre 1991 but not much else. I find it difficult to believe that the US services said otherwise.(3)
Even had there been any such WMD then it was completely understood that the only delivery systems that Saddam had were slightly modified scud and Samud=II russian-made ballistic missiles. Both of these have ranges of less than 500Km. Neither could possibly be construed as a threat to the US and not even a significant threat to his neighbours.(4)

Colin Powell and Condoleza Rice are both on record as saying that Iraq posed no threat - just before the invasion.
Here is Powell in 2001:
Quote:
We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...

and his report to Senate later that year :
Quote:
The sanctions, as they are called, have succeeded over the last 10 years, not in deterring him from moving in that direction, but from actually being able to move in that direction. The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn't have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained. And even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological and nuclear -- I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful. There's no question that they have some stockpiles of some of these sorts of weapons still under their control, but they have not been able to break out, they have not been able to come out with the capacity to deliver these kinds of systems or to actually have these kinds of systems that is much beyond where they were 10 years ago.

Even the loyal Condoleza said (on the Larry King show:July 2001)
Quote:
Well, the president has made very clear that he considers Saddam Hussein to be a threat to his neighbors, a threat to security in the region, in fact a threat to international security more broadly. But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.

Quote:

Bikerman wrote:
that it had no terrorist problem,

I dont' know of a single Arab country that dosn't have a terrorist problem.
Just because you don't know something to be false does not make it true. Try giving some sources or references, otherwise it's just not very well informed guesswork.
Quote:

Bikerman wrote:
that is was so weak from sanctions it was a threat to nobody,
Except itself, perhaps? Besides, factions of Iraq using WMD's on eachother probably wouldn't be healthy for neigboring countries either.

All this was supported by the US at the time because it wanted to make sure that Saddam did not loose the Iran Iraq war. The US supplied mustard gas chemicals, 21 strains of Anthrax and at least one weapons grade strain of Botulism at this period (ie after it knew that Saddam had used chemical weapons on the Iranians).(5)(6)
Quote:

At the media's and the Iraqis' 'low' estimate. The USA never killed a singe civilian on purpose. (Note the trials ongoing for soldiers who violated that policy.) Every person the USA killed was, at least at the time, believed to be hostile. Again, mistakes in identifying hostiles/civilians could be eliminated by the terrorists operating overtly rather than covertly.

Simply and completely untrue.
Video clip of the marines killing a wounded civilian and then cheering.(7)

Here is an NBC report on a pentagon investigation into the Haditha massacre :
Quote:
WASHINGTON - A Pentagon probe into the death of Iraqi civilians last November in the Iraqi city of Haditha will show that U.S. marines "killed innocent civilians in cold blood," a U.S. lawmaker said Wednesday.


From democracynow we have this report :
Quote:
US Troops Kill Pregnant Iraqi, Cousin
In other Iraq news, US troops shot and killed two Iraqi women Wednesday – one of them about to give birth. The women were in a vehicle rushing to the hospital where one of the victims, Nabiha Nisaif Jassim, was to deliver her baby. US troops said their car failed to stop in a prohibited zone despite warnings. But Jassim’s brother, who drove the vehicle, said he never saw or heard any warnings. Doctors failed to save Jassim’s unborn baby. She was the mother of two children. Her cousin was also killed in the attack.


Washington post report :
Quote:
The raid that killed the two children took place in Hashimiyat, a district of Hibhib, where al-Zarqawi was killed. Residents in Hashimiyat, near Baqouba about 35 miles northeast of Baghdad, accused American troops of targeting civilians to find insurgents.

LA Times :(eight)
NBC: Rape and killing of young girl (9)
Washington times - kill them as they flee (10)

I could go on and on...there are numerous documented incidents that give the lie to this ridiculous claim.
Quote:

Bikerman wrote:
have died needlessly

Needlessly? Yes, but as I have stated earlier (which you didn't bother to quote, I notice) their deaths could have been prevented more easily by the terrorists than by the USA.
And as I repeatedly point out, the terrorists are a consequence of the invasion not a reason for it or something that was previously a problem. The US had the easiest job in preventing these deaths...simply stay home.
Quote:
Quote:

So the media is biased and liberal.

See; everybody knows it. Why do they keep the pretense of objectivity?
I missed a question mark, as I suspect you well know.
Quote:

Bikerman wrote:
I wonder how such a biased media was so content to have it's reporters 'embedded' with the invading troops.

They got their reporters in the action where they could get video of tanks rolling along and soldiers shooting. Any major news station that declined this would not have that video and would have subseqently lower ratings (something they do not want).
Still makes it difficult to accept some liberal anti-US bias in the media when they happily put reporters in the best possible place to receive a pro-US bias by restricting access to news and encouraging friendships with troops (bound to influence the impartiality of reporting)
Quote:

We know that Iraq had little or nothing to do with 9/11; why do you keep repeating it, as if that makes it more important?
Because you keep making the terrorist link and citing 'defence' as a reason for the war when clearly both are fabrications. Bush tried to make the 9/11 link to support the terrorist link and failed miserably.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:

More immoral than the terrorists ? It IS terrorism so I don't understand the question.

You backed yourself nicely into that trap: If what we're doing is terrorisim, then it is by definition exactly as moral as what the terrorists do. That puts us on equal moral grounds.

I backed into no trap at all.
Quote:

Why do you continuously assume I'm talking to you? That comment was directed at LukeakaDanish.

I find that hard to credit given the sequence of postings involved.....
Bikerman wrote:

Quote:

Not really, sometimes what is moral and what is right are two different things.
Not for me....the two mean pretty much the same thing to me.
Quote:

Well, people's ideas of morality and what is right vary wildly, so that's to be expected.

But you said they were different so I presume that is your belief. Can you give an example, therefore, of when the right action is immoral ?
Quote:

Bikerman wrote:

Also, IRAQ terrorists never did attack, so that point about them stopping is hard to understand.

Stopping the terrorists is a secondary goal, the primary goal was to remove Saddam and any possible WMD's. Only after that did we have problems with the terrorists there.
I am glad to see that admission - the terrorism resulted from the invasion. Good. We can agree on that if little else.
Quote:

Bikerman wrote:

I have never said anything about US standards of freedom of speech other than to acknowledge it is probably the best in the world.

That is a false statement: just last sentance you said they do not apply to you. This is saying something (other than the second sentance) about it. Not that it matters much to our discussion, that is, but I enjoy pointing out logical errors.

There is nothing false in anything I said there. It does not apply to me because I am English and US legislation does not cover me. That says nothing at all about the freedom of speech itself other than the fact it does not apply to UK citizens. By all means point out my logical errors. Make sure they ARE errors first though.
Quote:

Also, about the civilian death toll:
1: Where are you getting that number, and how did it get to where you found it?

I try to use several sources when giving numbers. In this case I used a composite of several reliable sources (below) which occured in other sources and seemed to be a conservative figure that would not be needlessly controversial. I therefore used the figure from Iraqbodycount.(11)
I could have used the 100,000 from the Lancet paper :(12) but I thought that was perhaps a controversial figure.
Quote:

2: How many of those were killed by the USA, and how many were killed by the terrorists or Iraqi troops? Please state the source of that answer as well, if you can.

That is impossible to give accurate figures for because, as I'm sure you know, the US policy is to not keep casualty figures at all. Therefore any figure will be partial, depending on the source. I always try to avoid posting figures which I know are suspect (despite what you might think) and so have deliberately not made that split.
If I were to be dogmatic about this I would have to say that the only 'disinterested' and 'properly scientific' data on this would be the Lancet paper which gives a total figure of over 100,000 based on a statistical analysis.
3: How many of those were killed while in the same building as a terrorist or Iraqi soldier? (Not counting the ones killed by them.)
I do not know the answers to these, but I think those answers might be enlightening.[/quote]
Nobody knows the answers and I refuse to post speculation or ill-informed numbers. The point is that all the deaths are directly a result of the invasion.

Chris

Sources


(1) http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/31/1043804520548.html
(2) http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml
(3) http://camres.frih.net/resources/JSC.pdf
(4) http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_03/IraqWMD.asp
(5) Bob Woodward, "CIA Aiding Iraq in Gulf War; Target Data From U.S. Satellites Supplied for Nearly 2 Years," Washington Post, 15 December 1986
(6) http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html
(7) http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1/aztlan_thief_host_your_own_video_iraqiwar.wmv
(eight) http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060831/NEWS/608310327/1033/NEWS01
(9) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13630952/
(10) http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20060804-110110-6120r.htm
(11) http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
(12) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7967-2004Oct28.html
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:


Quote:

1: Iraq was (or at least seemed to be) developing weapons of mass destruction.

Not true and was known to be untrue at the time. Once again I have to point out that there were weapons inspectors doing a job at the time and the US chose to preempt their report, ignore large parts of Blix's summary and force the inspectors out before they had finished.(1)
(1) wrote:
claims that the inspectors had found that Iraqi officials were hiding and moving illicit materials within and outside of Iraq to prevent their discovery. He said that the inspectors had reported no such incidents.

Well, of course the weapons inspectors didn't see this! They were the ones it was thought to be being hidden from. These claims came from noting that often times, large trucks would leave the sites to be inspected just before an inspection. This was not proof, I'll admit, but it was suspicious.
Bikerman wrote:


Quote:

2: Iraq was home to many terrorist factions.

Again a repetition of the Bush line and, so far as I can determin, completely untrue. Can you support the claim ?(2)

That whole artilce is about how there is no link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. There are other terrorist groups besides Al-Qaeda, and I doubt that any of them (at least not the ones in the middle East) are friendly to the USA.
Bikerman wrote:

Quote:

This was not a situation we liked; the likelyhood that the terrorists would obtain these weapons was unnaceptable, besides the risk of Iraq using them against us directly.
We've solved #1, though #2 remains the same.

There were no weapons in the first place
But we thought there were, and we couldn't take chances.
Bikerman wrote:
and the UK secret services were saying at the time that he might have some residuals from pre 1991 but not much else. I find it difficult to believe that the US services said otherwise.(3)

(3) wrote:
(Pg 31) The published text of the dossier stated that Saddam was continuing to produce chemical and biological agents ...

The source itself contains some evidence. After 9/11, every official in the US was scared stiff of being blamed for overlooking any 'obvious' threat. Their oversensitivity at this time, with a possible threat of this magnitude, is quite understandable.

Bikerman wrote:

Even had there been any such WMD then it was completely understood that the only delivery systems that Saddam had were slightly modified scud and Samud=II russian-made ballistic missiles. Both of these have ranges of less than 500Km. Neither could possibly be construed as a threat to the US and not even a significant threat to his neighbours.(4)
The delivery system I would be worried about would be a terrorist's duffel bag.
Bikerman wrote:


Colin Powell and Condoleza Rice are both on record as saying that Iraq posed no threat - just before the invasion.
Here is Powell in 2001:
Quote:
We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...

and his report to Senate later that year :
Quote:
The sanctions, as they are called, have succeeded over the last 10 years, not in deterring him from moving in that direction, but from actually being able to move in that direction. The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn't have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained. And even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological and nuclear -- I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful. There's no question that they have some stockpiles of some of these sorts of weapons still under their control, but they have not been able to break out, they have not been able to come out with the capacity to deliver these kinds of systems or to actually have these kinds of systems that is much beyond where they were 10 years ago.

Even the loyal Condoleza said (on the Larry King show:July 2001)
Quote:
Well, the president has made very clear that he considers Saddam Hussein to be a threat to his neighbors, a threat to security in the region, in fact a threat to international security more broadly. But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.


Sure there were people saying that. However, there were also people saying otherwise, and as I said earlier, the officials at that time were loathe to take risks.
Bikerman wrote:

Quote:

Bikerman wrote:
that it had no terrorist problem,

I dont' know of a single Arab country that dosn't have a terrorist problem.
Just because you don't know something to be false does not make it true. Try giving some sources or references, otherwise it's just not very well informed guesswork.

Okay, let's assume it's a well-known group, such as the Kurds. (Not exactly a terrorist group, but it still would be bad for them to get WMD's). Now suppose Saddam develops a WMD. Now a person who has Kurdish sympathies (or is being blackmailed by them) gets to be in charge of a few of the WMD's. All that person needs to do would be to arrange a terrorist strike at an opportune time, so his friends can capture one of the WMD's. Then the Kurds use it on Saddam, then Saddam retaliates with the ones he's got left. Lots of civilain deaths, and probably some harmfull stuff being carried on the wind to other countries. Is that worh avoiding?
Bikerman wrote:

Quote:

Bikerman wrote:
that is was so weak from sanctions it was a threat to nobody,
Except itself, perhaps? Besides, factions of Iraq using WMD's on eachother probably wouldn't be healthy for neigboring countries either.

All this was supported by the US at the time because it wanted to make sure that Saddam did not loose the Iran Iraq war. The US supplied mustard gas chemicals, 21 strains of Anthrax and at least one weapons grade strain of Botulism at this period (ie after it knew that Saddam had used chemical weapons on the Iranians).(5)(6)
Yes, the US supported Iraq once. However, nations change sometimes, and Iraq may have been as peacefull as you claim it was at that time.
Bikerman wrote:

Quote:

At the media's and the Iraqis' 'low' estimate. The USA never killed a singe civilian on purpose. (Note the trials ongoing for soldiers who violated that policy.) Every person the USA killed was, at least at the time, believed to be hostile. Again, mistakes in identifying hostiles/civilians could be eliminated by the terrorists operating overtly rather than covertly.

Simply and completely untrue.
So you'd like to tell me that the US kills civilians for fun?
Bikerman wrote:

Video clip of the marines killing a wounded civilian and then cheering.(7)

And they knew this man was a civilan how? I'd like to see what happened just before that, and why he was wounded in the first place. Also, I don't see how it would be difficult, much less impossible to fake that video clip, using different clips of the troops aiming and the 'civilian' getting shot.
Bikerman wrote:

Here is an NBC report on a pentagon investigation into the Haditha massacre :
Quote:
WASHINGTON - A Pentagon probe into the death of Iraqi civilians last November in the Iraqi city of Haditha will show that U.S. marines "killed innocent civilians in cold blood," a U.S. lawmaker said Wednesday.


And, like I said, the US prosecutes those who kill civilians un-needfully. Doing so is not the policy of the US, even if it is the policy of some soldiers.
Bikerman wrote:

From democracynow we have this report :
Quote:
US Troops Kill Pregnant Iraqi, Cousin
In other Iraq news, US troops shot and killed two Iraqi women Wednesday – one of them about to give birth. The women were in a vehicle rushing to the hospital where one of the victims, Nabiha Nisaif Jassim, was to deliver her baby. US troops said their car failed to stop in a prohibited zone despite warnings. But Jassim’s brother, who drove the vehicle, said he never saw or heard any warnings. Doctors failed to save Jassim’s unborn baby. She was the mother of two children. Her cousin was also killed in the attack.

Do you remember the scenario I set up for you earlier, when a suspicious car is not stopping at the checkpoint? ^That's exactly what happened! Thanks for giving me an example of it! How exactly were the troops manning the checkpoint to know that that car was not full of explosives? Those troops have seen too many of their own wounded or killed in such situations, and they don't want to risk their lives when they could risk others' lives instead.
Bikerman wrote:


Washington post report :
Quote:
The raid that killed the two children took place in Hashimiyat, a district of Hibhib, where al-Zarqawi was killed. Residents in Hashimiyat, near Baqouba about 35 miles northeast of Baghdad, accused American troops of targeting civilians to find insurgents.

This could easily be a baseless accusation. Look at the source.
Also, it's an example of the liberal bias of the media: did they check the veracity of this accusation before publishing it like it was the gospel truth?
And in any case; the accusation was that they targeted civilains in order to find insurgents. In my book, that justifies it (depending on the number of civilians and the nuber of insugents found).
Bikerman wrote:

LA Times :(eight)
NBC: Rape and killing of young girl (9)
Washington times - kill them as they flee (10)

I could go on and on...there are numerous documented incidents that give the lie to this ridiculous claim.
I'll not bother to take the time to refute all these claims (seeing as how you say they are 'numerous'), but I note that some are:
-Justifiable in that they were used to find the insurgents
-Unsupported claims by people with a huge potential for pro-insurgent bias.
-In situations where the soldiers were acting in self-defense against someone who acted like a terrorist. (You can't expect them to make close inspections for suicide bombs. That would be, well, suicide.)
Also all of them are from sources in the liberal media, which I trust not at all.
Bikerman wrote:


Quote:

Bikerman wrote:
have died needlessly

Needlessly? Yes, but as I have stated earlier (which you didn't bother to quote, I notice) their deaths could have been prevented more easily by the terrorists than by the USA.
And as I repeatedly point out, the terrorists are a consequence of the invasion not a reason for it or something that was previously a problem. The US had the easiest job in preventing these deaths...simply stay home.

And wait for them to come to us right? I already explained the reasoning behind going to Iraq, and leaving the job half-done would do much more harm than good, not the least of which being that the terrorists get it into their heads that they can successfully bully the USA around.
Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
Quote:

So the media is biased and liberal.

See; everybody knows it. Why do they keep the pretense of objectivity?
I missed a question mark, as I suspect you well know.

No, I did not know that. I thought it was common knowlege that the media has a liberal bias.
Bikerman wrote:
Quote:

Bikerman wrote:
I wonder how such a biased media was so content to have it's reporters 'embedded' with the invading troops.

They got their reporters in the action where they could get video of tanks rolling along and soldiers shooting. Any major news station that declined this would not have that video and would have subseqently lower ratings (something they do not want).
Still makes it difficult to accept some liberal anti-US bias in the media when they happily put reporters in the best possible place to receive a pro-US bias by restricting access to news and encouraging friendships with troops (bound to influence the impartiality of reporting)
The media's bias is unofficial; they couldn't refuse the assignment on that grounds. And what makes you think that a liberal person will loose his bias just by being around the military?
Bikerman wrote:
Quote:

We know that Iraq had little or nothing to do with 9/11; why do you keep repeating it, as if that makes it more important?
Because you keep making the terrorist link and citing 'defence' as a reason for the war when clearly both are fabrications. Bush tried to make the 9/11 link to support the terrorist link and failed miserably.
As stated earlier, there are other terrorists besides al-Qaeda. Also, that is one thing that I will agree on, that there is little or no al-Qaeda - Iraq link, and that Iraq was not behind 9/11. That, however, is not a factor in my reasoning for invading Iraq.
Bikerman wrote:

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:

More immoral than the terrorists ? It IS terrorism so I don't understand the question.

You backed yourself nicely into that trap: If what we're doing is terrorisim, then it is by definition exactly as moral as what the terrorists do. That puts us on equal moral grounds.

I backed into no trap at all.
Quote:

Why do you continuously assume I'm talking to you? That comment was directed at LukeakaDanish.

I find that hard to credit given the sequence of postings involved.....
Really, I do know who I'm talking to when I'm posting. If there is anything I'm the authority on, its my intentions while posting, so will you at least trust me on that?
Bikerman wrote:

Bikerman wrote:

Quote:

Not really, sometimes what is moral and what is right are two different things.
Not for me....the two mean pretty much the same thing to me.
Quote:

Well, people's ideas of morality and what is right vary wildly, so that's to be expected.

But you said they were different so I presume that is your belief. Can you give an example, therefore, of when the right action is immoral ?

I'll use the (much) earlier stated situation where a kidnapper has taken my mother hostage, and I have the choice of shooting at the kidnapper at great risk to my mother. This would be a situation where the right and moral things to do would be different. The moral thing to do would be to hold my fire. However, if the kidnapper gets away, I'll almost certainly never get another chance at a rescue; also, if I do hold my fire, the kidnapper may threaten my mother's life in order to make me give up my gun, then kidnap me too. All things considered, it would be the right thing to do to try to take out the kidnapper and be very carefull about it.
Bikerman wrote:

Quote:

Bikerman wrote:

Also, IRAQ terrorists never did attack, so that point about them stopping is hard to understand.

Stopping the terrorists is a secondary goal, the primary goal was to remove Saddam and any possible WMD's. Only after that did we have problems with the terrorists there.
I am glad to see that admission - the terrorism resulted from the invasion. Good. We can agree on that if little else.

Not really. Just because we only had problems with the terrorists after taking over, dosn't mean that they weren't there before we came.
Bikerman wrote:

Quote:

Also, about the civilian death toll:
1: Where are you getting that number, and how did it get to where you found it?

I try to use several sources when giving numbers. In this case I used a composite of several reliable sources (below) which occured in other sources and seemed to be a conservative figure that would not be needlessly controversial. I therefore used the figure from Iraqbodycount.(11)

Here's a huge issue: check out the causes of deaths in the database:
Lets start on the first page (the latest ones) (minimum figures):
Cause of death ------------| Number | Who did the killing
gunfire----------------------|43--------| Could be either side
gunfire/executed/tortured-|134------| Probably insurgents: USA rarely,if ever uses torture.
car/motorcycle bomb------|30--------| Insurgents
bomb in bag----------------|3----------| Insurgents
suicide bomber-------------|14--------| Insurgents
car bomb--------------------|29--------| Insurgents
roadside bomb--------------|25--------| Insurgents
severed head---------------|1---------| Insurgents
mortars----------------------|10--------| Could be either
drive by shooting-----------|2---------| Insurgents
bodies found----------------|4---------| Could be either

So:
Total civilian deaths caused since 10 september 2006: 295
Total definately insurgents' fault: 238
Total that could be done by either side: 57
Total definately USA's fault: 0
And that's from your own source!
At the most, you could claim that the USA caused 57 civilain deaths this month, but then you'd have to argue that the insurgents never kill using mortars, guns, or the mysterious 'bodies found'.
Bikerman wrote:

I could have used the 100,000 from the Lancet paper :(12) but I thought that was perhaps a controversial figure.

Of course it's contraversial; it dosn't even agree with the number you gave us earlier.
Bikerman wrote:

Quote:

2: How many of those were killed by the USA, and how many were killed by the terrorists or Iraqi troops? Please state the source of that answer as well, if you can.

That is impossible to give accurate figures
Though I tried for you earlier. It's looking to be largely insurgent-caused.
Bikerman wrote:
because, as I'm sure you know, the US policy is to not keep casualty figures at all.
They're probably just confidential. The USA is big on paperwork.
Bikerman wrote:
Therefore any figure will be partial, depending on the source. I always try to avoid posting figures which I know are suspect (despite what you might think) and so have deliberately not made that split.
If I were to be dogmatic about this I would have to say that the only 'disinterested' and 'properly scientific' data on this would be the Lancet paper which gives a total figure of over 100,000 based on a statistical analysis.
On statistical analysis? Now that's accurate!
Bikerman wrote:

3: How many of those were killed while in the same building as a terrorist or Iraqi soldier? (Not counting the ones killed by them.)
I do not know the answers to these, but I think those answers might be enlightening.
Nobody knows the answers and I refuse to post speculation or ill-informed numbers. The point is that all the deaths are directly a result of the invasion.

Perhaps you don't understand the word 'directly'. Those deaths were directly caused by those that killed them. The invasion is an indirect cause. Or are you going to tell me that 'The invasion caused insurgent activity, which caused US military and civilain deaths, which caused retaliation, which caused more insurgent activity...' is a direct cause?
Yes, it was a cause, but that does not absolve the trigger-pullers from responsibility: they are the ones who could have most easily averted civilian deaths by simply not twitching the finger.
Bikerman wrote:


Chris

Sources


(1) http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/31/1043804520548.html
(2) http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml
(3) http://camres.frih.net/resources/JSC.pdf
(4) http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_03/IraqWMD.asp
(5) Bob Woodward, "CIA Aiding Iraq in Gulf War; Target Data From U.S. Satellites Supplied for Nearly 2 Years," Washington Post, 15 December 1986
(6) http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html
(7) http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1/aztlan_thief_host_your_own_video_iraqiwar.wmv
(eight) http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060831/NEWS/608310327/1033/NEWS01
(9) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13630952/
(10) http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20060804-110110-6120r.htm
(11) http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
(12) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7967-2004Oct28.html
evandb
LukeakaDanish wrote:
Also america have falsely blamed Osama Bin Laden for the terror acts of 11th sep.

(dont belive me? - check out this, and THEN decide what to think)


Please don't believe that crap. It's all sensationalist bullshit. Hyper radicals produce it as a response to the propaganda machine that is Fox/CBS/NBC etc, but that doesnt make it any more true than what the news outlets tell you.

People will see what they want to see and they will find ways to explain coindicences that are not right. Conspiricy theorism is as bad as the mainstream media. Please, please, don't buy into that crap.

And to the original poster: Get a clue. You are precisely what is fueling the Bush machine. You are buying into the neocon anti-Islamic propaganda. The fact of the matter is that the US has made many, many foreign policy mistakes and now we are paying for them. Our interference throughout the world promoting our interests has hurt us. Please don't think the US is a big jolly benevolent society that accepts all and gives moeny all over the world because we want to see the whole world be happy. That's not the way it works. We invest in what we believe will give us returns in the future. Whether that is wrong or right is up to you, but that is what happens. We invest in developing countries not out of good faith and selflessness, but out of self interest.

The bulk of US foreign policy since WWII has been very realist. Despite what the current administration tells us, they are doing no more than securing our interests and influence around the world (although they have done a shit job of it). They can spew as much sanctamonius rubbish as they please about how they are fighting for freedom and democracy, but in reality they are doing well for themselves, nothing more. If some good happens in the process, well thats good PR and Im sure some people feel good about it. But when it harms others and the world, well, thats the price to pay for freedom and democracy for all, they claim.

In the end, thats what this West v Islam conflict is about. The ME Islamic countries don't want the US meddling in their affairs and asserting control over the region. They want their sovereignty, just as the US did many years ago from the Brits.
benjmd
Crikey,

You all sure are going on and on about this. Don't you all think that maybe it's just not at all clear what the answer is?

If a man is going to kill you, you can:
(A) stop him
OR
(B) let him kill you

To stop him you may have to kill him. Is this moral? You could argue that permitting your own death by inaction is essentially suicide. You could argue that human life is sacred and that taking someone's life to save your own is always wrong, that you should die if that is necessary to uphold your moral reverence for life. You could argue that you think his intent to kill anyone is misdeed enough to take his life (you'd probably argue poorly).

Either way. Ask 10,000,000 people that question and ask them to explain it. It gets tricky. But that is the question a nation faces when they go to war against a threat (and yes, terrorists including Osama Bin Laden do want to kill US citizens and gov't and army members - if you disagree, then we cannot discuss the matter further b/c we would have a radical, unresolvably different perception of reality).

So say you're the guy who defends killing in self-defense. How do you know your attacker's intent? How does he know yours? In large numbers, this quickly leads to a "who attacked first and are we attacking or are we defending?" scenario for all parties involved. After all, once both parties have engaged in actions determined to kill the other, their counterpart is further inclined to continue such action to avoid their own death.

AND THIS IS A SIMPLISTIC MODEL of the issues driving aggression between all parties around the world that doesn't take into account pride, religion, territory, economics, justice, etc.

The best solution would be no war. But then do we all just die and leave the killers to walk the Earth by themselves?

I would hope that we could disable our enemy's means of killing or will to kill before eliminating the enemy himself. I think that would be the only way to *truly* resolve all these conflicts. But I don't know what that way is. I don't know if anyone does.

So what do we do until we figure that out?
Bikerman
ocalhoun wrote:

Well, of course the weapons inspectors didn't see this! They were the ones it was thought to be being hidden from. These claims came from noting that often times, large trucks would leave the sites to be inspected just before an inspection. This was not proof, I'll admit, but it was suspicious.
Sort of makes my point really, doesn't it ?

Quote:
That whole artilce is about how there is no link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. There are other terrorist groups besides Al-Qaeda, and I doubt that any of them (at least not the ones in the middle East) are friendly to the USA.

Is that a no then ? ie you can't give me support for any terrorist links at
all ?
Quote:
The delivery system I would be worried about would be a terrorist's duffel bag.

In which case the invasion was the worst possible action since it has undoubtedly and predictably increased the possibility of that happening.
Quote:

Sure there were people saying that. However, there were also people saying otherwise, and as I said earlier, the officials at that time were loathe to take risks.
You miss the point...the quotes were FROM the officials at that time.
Quote:
Okay, let's assume it's a well-known group, such as the Kurds. (Not exactly a terrorist group, but it still would be bad for them to get WMD's). Now suppose Saddam develops a WMD. Now a person who has Kurdish sympathies (or is being blackmailed by them) gets to be in charge of a few of the WMD's. All that person needs to do would be to arrange a terrorist strike at an opportune time, so his friends can capture one of the WMD's. Then the Kurds use it on Saddam, then Saddam retaliates with the ones he's got left. Lots of civilain deaths, and probably some harmfull stuff being carried on the wind to other countries. Is that worh avoiding?
Suppose, suppose suppose...why ? The correct action was the one in place at the time. Allow the inspection team time to report, decide on the basis of that report how to procede. That was UN policy and it was that policy which the US/UK halted by invading.
Quote:

And they knew this man was a civilan how? I'd like to see what happened just before that, and why he was wounded in the first place. Also, I don't see how it would be difficult, much less impossible to fake that video clip, using different clips of the troops aiming and the 'civilian' getting shot.

Well I can't prove the video is real but the same applies to all such info so that takes us nowhere.
Quote:

And, like I said, the US prosecutes those who kill civilians un-needfully. Doing so is not the policy of the US, even if it is the policy of some soldiers.

No, what you said was :
Quote:
The USA never killed a singe civilian on purpose.

And I repeat - simply untrue.
Quote:

Do you remember the scenario I set up for you earlier, when a suspicious car is not stopping at the checkpoint? ^That's exactly what happened! Thanks for giving me an example of it! How exactly were the troops manning the checkpoint to know that that car was not full of explosives? Those troops have seen too many of their own wounded or killed in such situations, and they don't want to risk their lives when they could risk others' lives instead.

So they will kill civilians anytime they decide that it needs doing, rather than what you previously said. Point proven I think...
Quote:

This could easily be a baseless accusation. Look at the source.
Also, it's an example of the liberal bias of the media: did they check the veracity of this accusation before publishing it like it was the gospel truth?
And in any case; the accusation was that they targeted civilains in order to find insurgents. In my book, that justifies it (depending on the number of civilians and the nuber of insugents found).

Anytime the story contradicts your views it is accused of being wrong. Besides which you have again contradicted your previous assertion that the US never deliberately killed civilians. Now you say that they do, but to find insurgents, which justifies it. Apart from the morality, which is repugnant to most civilised countries, the contradiction is obvious.
Quote:

I'll not bother to take the time to refute all these claims (seeing as how you say they are 'numerous'), but I note that some are:
-Justifiable in that they were used to find the insurgents
-Unsupported claims by people with a huge potential for pro-insurgent bias.
-In situations where the soldiers were acting in self-defense against someone who acted like a terrorist. (You can't expect them to make close inspections for suicide bombs. That would be, well, suicide.)
Also all of them are from sources in the liberal media, which I trust not at all.

a) You can't refute them all, so time is not an issue.
b) Once again we hear the claim that it's a liberal conspiracy whenever I provide documentation which refutes you.
Quote:

And wait for them to come to us right? I already explained the reasoning behind going to Iraq, and leaving the job half-done would do much more harm than good, not the least of which being that the terrorists get it into their heads that they can successfully bully the USA around.

You have not explained the reasoning at all.

Quote:
As stated earlier, there are other terrorists besides al-Qaeda. Also, that is one thing that I will agree on, that there is little or no al-Qaeda - Iraq link, and that Iraq was not behind 9/11. That, however, is not a factor in my reasoning for invading Iraq.
The reasoning eludes me. WMD - not valid as shown. Terrorism - not only not valid but also completely laughable in the circumstances.

Quote:
Really, I do know who I'm talking to when I'm posting. If there is anything I'm the authority on, its my intentions while posting, so will you at least trust me on that?

Certainly...I accept what you say and retract the criciticism.
Quote:

I'll use the (much) earlier stated situation where a kidnapper has taken my mother hostage, and I have the choice of shooting at the kidnapper at great risk to my mother. This would be a situation where the right and moral things to do would be different. The moral thing to do would be to hold my fire. However, if the kidnapper gets away, I'll almost certainly never get another chance at a rescue; also, if I do hold my fire, the kidnapper may threaten my mother's life in order to make me give up my gun, then kidnap me too. All things considered, it would be the right thing to do to try to take out the kidnapper and be very carefull about it.

Wll, we will have to just disagree and move on. My own opinion is that in this case, like all others, moral and right behavior coincide - you don't shoot if you believe it is likely to kill the hostage unless there is another CURRENT factor which would influence the decision - and in this situation I can think of none.
Quote:

Not really. Just because we only had problems with the terrorists after taking over, dosn't mean that they weren't there before we came.
I have posted references which say they were not. You have posted no support and merely (as usual) rely on your own supposition.
Quote:

Here's a huge issue: check out the causes of deaths in the database:
Lets start on the first page (the latest ones) (minimum figures):
Cause of death ------------| Number | Who did the killing
gunfire----------------------|43--------| Could be either side
gunfire/executed/tortured-|134------| Probably insurgents: USA rarely,if ever uses torture.

Once again this is untrue and, in the cicumstances, silly. The US has already admitted using torture at Abu-Grade. Rumsfelt keeps trying to say that current policy is not turture but no other body in the field of human rights agrees. In fact they are, as far as I can tell, unanimous that current treatment of prisoners in Abu-grade, Guantanamo and other US run prisons amounts to and is classifiable as torture.
Nor can you assume that the list of categories precludes the US simply because of the nature of the killing. I never claimed that the killings were all US because that would be silly, but I am not willing to accept that none of them are.
Incidentally, there are only 2 proper scientific studies of the death toll. The Lancet study (proper peer reviewed journal of medicine) previously arrived at a figure of 100,000. You may be interested to know that a new study in the Lancet today puts the figure at 650,000.
Since the US has a deliberate and acknowledged policy of not recording figures then I fail to see how Bush could ealier today say (about the Lancet study) that it is 'simply not credible'. How would he know ?
Quote:

Perhaps you don't understand the word 'directly'. Those deaths were directly caused by those that killed them. The invasion is an indirect cause. Or are you going to tell me that 'The invasion caused insurgent activity, which caused US military and civilain deaths, which caused retaliation, which caused more insurgent activity...' is a direct cause?
Yes, it was a cause, but that does not absolve the trigger-pullers from responsibility: they are the ones who could have most easily averted civilian deaths by simply not twitching the finger.

What I said (and stand by) was that the deaths are a direct result of the invasion. My English is normally OK and I think that this is accurate. Direct would mean without intermediate or without steps in-between, and in this sense I think that is accurate. A direct cause is not necessarily singlular - there can be many direct causes for an event. At least that's how I understand the phrase and that is the meaning I meant to convey. The killer is certainly the agent and directly responsible..no argument there.
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:

Well, of course the weapons inspectors didn't see this! They were the ones it was thought to be being hidden from. These claims came from noting that often times, large trucks would leave the sites to be inspected just before an inspection. This was not proof, I'll admit, but it was suspicious.
Sort of makes my point really, doesn't it ?
Wanting only complete proof is a bit idealistic in feilds such as intelligence. There was enough evidence to cause suspicion, and we made a decision based on that. I'll admit that now it looks like that was a wrong decision, but hindsight is 20/20 and we were working on the best information we had at the time. As for the weapons inspectors, frankly I have no faith in the UN.
Bikerman wrote:


Quote:
That whole artilce is about how there is no link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. There are other terrorist groups besides Al-Qaeda, and I doubt that any of them (at least not the ones in the middle East) are friendly to the USA.

Is that a no then ? ie you can't give me support for any terrorist links at
all ?
I was just pointing out that your documentation did not prove your point. Iraq could have been (and probably was) full of anti-US terrorist groups at the time, but their presence would only be felt if they had an opportunity to strike at the US.
Bikerman wrote:

Quote:
The delivery system I would be worried about would be a terrorist's duffel bag.

In which case the invasion was the worst possible action since it has undoubtedly and predictably increased the possibility of that happening.
By eliminating the possibility of WMD's? I don't really care if they take conventional explosives, as those can only kill a limited number of people.
Bikerman wrote:

Quote:

Sure there were people saying that. However, there were also people saying otherwise, and as I said earlier, the officials at that time were loathe to take risks.
You miss the point...the quotes were FROM the officials at that time.
some of the officials. I'm talking about from the intelligence gatherers up. Nobody wanted the blame for being the one who ignored the next big threat because they doubted it's credibility. Therefore it got passed up the chain, just in case, where the next official in the line would take the same process. This is what I blame for the bad intelligence.
Bikerman wrote:

Quote:
Okay, let's assume it's a well-known group, such as the Kurds. (Not exactly a terrorist group, but it still would be bad for them to get WMD's). Now suppose Saddam develops a WMD. Now a person who has Kurdish sympathies (or is being blackmailed by them) gets to be in charge of a few of the WMD's. All that person needs to do would be to arrange a terrorist strike at an opportune time, so his friends can capture one of the WMD's. Then the Kurds use it on Saddam, then Saddam retaliates with the ones he's got left. Lots of civilain deaths, and probably some harmfull stuff being carried on the wind to other countries. Is that worh avoiding?
Suppose, suppose suppose...why ?
Because without supposing, we could not think of what may have happened if
1: the intelligence was correct and 2: we did not invade.
Bikerman wrote:
The correct action was the one in place at the time. Allow the inspection team time to report, decide on the basis of that report how to procede. That was UN policy and it was that policy which the US/UK halted by invading.
We doubted the UN's ability to find the WMD's. (Seeing how they were just a small group of inspectors against a large, well-motivated country.)
Bikerman wrote:

Quote:

And, like I said, the US prosecutes those who kill civilians un-needfully. Doing so is not the policy of the US, even if it is the policy of some soldiers.

No, what you said was :
Quote:
The USA never killed a singe civilian on purpose.

And I repeat - simply untrue.
Need I say again that the inividual soldier is capable of disobeying orders? The individual soldier (or even a group of them) is a seperate entity from the USA, expecialy when they are disobeying orders.
Bikerman wrote:

Quote:

Do you remember the scenario I set up for you earlier, when a suspicious car is not stopping at the checkpoint? ^That's exactly what happened! Thanks for giving me an example of it! How exactly were the troops manning the checkpoint to know that that car was not full of explosives? Those troops have seen too many of their own wounded or killed in such situations, and they don't want to risk their lives when they could risk others' lives instead.

So they will kill civilians anytime they decide that it needs doing, rather than what you previously said. Point proven I think...
What do you think the sodiers said about that car!?
1:
"Hey look, there's some civilians; they're not stopping"
"let's shoot 'em!"
"Yeah! Shootin' civilians is fun!"
-OR-
2:
"Hey look, that car's not stopping! It might be a carbomb!"
"Stop it before it gets here or we're toast!"

You can't blame them for killing civilains that they are unable to distinguish from the enemy! It's called 'friendly fire', and it's been a problem for a long time. If it were easier to tell civilains from enemies, you wouldn't have as many friendly fire incedents, but unfortunately, in this war, it is very difficult to tell.
Bikerman wrote:

Quote:

This could easily be a baseless accusation. Look at the source.
Also, it's an example of the liberal bias of the media: did they check the veracity of this accusation before publishing it like it was the gospel truth?
And in any case; the accusation was that they targeted civilains in order to find insurgents. In my book, that justifies it (depending on the number of civilians and the nuber of insugents found).

Anytime the story contradicts your views it is accused of being wrong. Besides which you have again contradicted your previous assertion that the US never deliberately killed civilians. Now you say that they do, but to find insurgents, which justifies it. Apart from the morality, which is repugnant to most civilised countries, the contradiction is obvious.
I do not accept that they did kill civilains on purpose. I only agreed that they should. This is possible because I still do not accept the veracity of this statement, given it's ultimate source.
Bikerman wrote:

Quote:

I'll not bother to take the time to refute all these claims (seeing as how you say they are 'numerous'), but I note that some are:
-Justifiable in that they were used to find the insurgents
-Unsupported claims by people with a huge potential for pro-insurgent bias.
-In situations where the soldiers were acting in self-defense against someone who acted like a terrorist. (You can't expect them to make close inspections for suicide bombs. That would be, well, suicide.)
Also all of them are from sources in the liberal media, which I trust not at all.

a) You can't refute them all, so time is not an issue.
I might be able to refute them all, but I don't want to waste the time doing so to a person who will not really care if I do or not.
Bikerman wrote:

b) Once again we hear the claim that it's a liberal conspiracy whenever I provide documentation which refutes you.
That might just be because most of your 'documentation' is from the liberal media.
Bikerman wrote:

Quote:

And wait for them to come to us right? I already explained the reasoning behind going to Iraq, and leaving the job half-done would do much more harm than good, not the least of which being that the terrorists get it into their heads that they can successfully bully the USA around.

You have not explained the reasoning at all.
No, not all at once I havn't, but I have been doing so gradualy throughout this thread. Here's a quick recap:
1: We were, admittedly, paranoid at that time.
2: We get some evidence of Iraq, which we thought of as a dangerous nation, developing WMD's.
3: We think of what those WMD's could do in the hands of muslim fanatics.
4: We try to disprove the evidence of WMD's
5: We come close to disproving it, but we are still uncertain.
6: Now I'll admit, this is where the bad decision comes in, but I will only concede that given the circumstances, it was not that bad of a decision. We decide to invade.
7: Now that we're in the country, and have destroyed the infasructure, we can't leave it the way it is, or it will become far worse than it was to start out with.
Bikerman wrote:


Quote:
As stated earlier, there are other terrorists besides al-Qaeda. Also, that is one thing that I will agree on, that there is little or no al-Qaeda - Iraq link, and that Iraq was not behind 9/11. That, however, is not a factor in my reasoning for invading Iraq.
The reasoning eludes me. WMD - not valid as shown. Terrorism - not only not valid but also completely laughable in the circumstances.
You call the idea of terrorists being in Iraq before the war laughable? Can you prove they weren't there?
Bikerman wrote:


ocalhoun wrote:

I'll use the (much) earlier stated situation where a kidnapper has taken my mother hostage, and I have the choice of shooting at the kidnapper at great risk to my mother. This would be a situation where the right and moral things to do would be different. The moral thing to do would be to hold my fire. However, if the kidnapper gets away, I'll almost certainly never get another chance at a rescue; also, if I do hold my fire, the kidnapper may threaten my mother's life in order to make me give up my gun, then kidnap me too. All things considered, it would be the right thing to do to try to take out the kidnapper and be very carefull about it.

Wll, we will have to just disagree and move on. My own opinion is that in this case, like all others, moral and right behavior coincide - you don't shoot if you believe it is likely to kill the hostage unless there is another CURRENT factor which would influence the decision - and in this situation I can think of none.
CURRENT factors that could influence the decision:
1: Kidnapper is about to kill hostage anyway
2: Kidnapper wants to take you hostage as well
FUTURE factors that could influence it: (and yes, we do need to worry about the future; that's the essence of good planning.)
3: Kidnapper might kill the hostage as soon as the hostage is no longer usefull. (Immidiately after getaway)
4: Kidnapper might not be cought before killing the hostage
5: Kidnapper might torture the hostage to a point worse than death
6: Kidnapper might use the hostage again when cought, leaving the police in the same situation. What would they do?
Bikerman wrote:

Quote:

Not really. Just because we only had problems with the terrorists after taking over, dosn't mean that they weren't there before we came.
I have posted references which say they were not. You have posted no support and merely (as usual) rely on your own supposition.
So I'm to accept that Iraqis were unanimously friendly to the USA before the invasion, despite lingering memories from the Kuwait war?
Bikerman wrote:

Quote:

Here's a huge issue: check out the causes of deaths in the database:
Lets start on the first page (the latest ones) (minimum figures):
Cause of death ------------| Number | Who did the killing
gunfire----------------------|43--------| Could be either side
gunfire/executed/tortured-|134------| Probably insurgents: USA rarely,if ever uses torture.

Once again this is untrue and, in the cicumstances, silly. The US has already admitted using torture at Abu-Grade.

1: That was an isolated event.
2: As far as torture goes, that was pretty mild. I don't see how the things that went on in there could be called a cause of death.
3: Those were enemy combatants that were imprisoned there, not civilians. We don't make a habit of keeping civilians in jails. (At least not ones that wer'e sure are innocent.)
So how can you say that the USA has contributed to the civilian death count via torture? Even if there was some odd incedent, it would surely be isolated, and not account for the massive number of civilians killed that way (134).
My best estimate based on these figures is that about 1 in 5 civilian deaths in Iraq are directly caused by the USA, and most of these are incedents of friendly fire, or civilians getting cought in the crossfire.
Bikerman wrote:
Rumsfelt keeps trying to say that current policy is not turture but no other body in the field of human rights agrees. In fact they are, as far as I can tell, unanimous that current treatment of prisoners in Abu-grade, Guantanamo and other US run prisons amounts to and is classifiable as torture.
The modern idea of torture is laughable. Why would we torture the prisoners? If we want information out of them, we have drugs for that. Example: Sodium Penthanol. I'm sorry, but being made to stand around naked is not torture people do that for fun at nudist colonies. Being dunked into icy water untill you're about to loose conciousness due to suffocation, then letting you breathe, then reapeating: that is torture.
Bikerman wrote:

Nor can you assume that the list of categories precludes the US simply because of the nature of the killing. I never claimed that the killings were all US because that would be silly, but I am not willing to accept that none of them are.
Niether am I, but I do propose to you that most of the civilian deaths are due to the insurgency, wether they were trying to get US soldiers and missing or were targeting civilains directly. (As a side note, I'd like you to try and justify that action.)
Bikerman wrote:

Incidentally, there are only 2 proper scientific studies of the death toll. The Lancet study (proper peer reviewed journal of medicine) previously arrived at a figure of 100,000. You may be interested to know that a new study in the Lancet today puts the figure at 650,000.
650,000 eh? Why am I not suprised at this exponential increase in the estimation? Was 100,000 not an impressive enough number?
Bikerman wrote:

Since the US has a deliberate and acknowledged policy of not recording figures then I fail to see how Bush could ealier today say (about the Lancet study) that it is 'simply not credible'. How would he know ?
He knew that because it was based on statistical analysis, which is a fancy word for guesswork. You mentioned two studies; what's the other one?
Bikerman wrote:

Quote:

Perhaps you don't understand the word 'directly'. Those deaths were directly caused by those that killed them. The invasion is an indirect cause. Or are you going to tell me that 'The invasion caused insurgent activity, which caused US military and civilain deaths, which caused retaliation, which caused more insurgent activity...' is a direct cause?
Yes, it was a cause, but that does not absolve the trigger-pullers from responsibility: they are the ones who could have most easily averted civilian deaths by simply not twitching the finger.

What I said (and stand by) was that the deaths are a direct result of the invasion. My English is normally OK and I think that this is accurate. Direct would mean without intermediate or without steps in-between, and in this sense I think that is accurate. A direct cause is not necessarily singlular - there can be many direct causes for an event. At least that's how I understand the phrase and that is the meaning I meant to convey. The killer is certainly the agent and directly responsible..no argument there.

The invasion --causes--> Hatred --causes--> violence --causes--> civilian deaths
^ In this model I made for you, the violence is a direct cause. (No intermediaries)
However, the invasion and the hatred it caused have intermediaries between them and the civilian deaths. This makes them indirect causes.
Or are you going to tell me that many civilians dropped dead just upon seeing the US troops coming?

Also, something to think about. How many of these deaths were the cause of simple crime? This could be a large number based on the state of law enforcement in Iraq.
Here's some numbers on this:
Violent crimes in florida from 2001 to 2005 (about the same amount of time the Iraq war has been going on):
631,986
These include everything from murder to armed robbery.
Civilian deaths in Iraq during about the same abount of time:
48,000 or 100000, depending on who you listen to.
Total murders in the USA in 2003 and 2004: 32665
(http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html)
Extrapolate that for 5 years: 81,662
Iraq civilian death toll: 48,000 (with a war)
USA civilain death toll: 81,000 (without any war) (not counting 9/11)
Not that that proves anything; the USA has a much larger population, but that is interesting.


[/i]
Bikerman
We are clearly not going to get anywhere with this. I post references and links and you post supposition, guesses and inference. That's fine - rather that than distortion or made up stats anyday, but it doesn't really give me anywhere to focus my response. If you reject the sources I give then there is no real response I can make.

You tell me that
Quote:
Those were enemy combatants that were imprisoned there, not civilians. We don't make a habit of keeping civilians in jails. (At least not ones that wer'e sure are innocent.)

and then you go on :
Quote:
The modern idea of torture is laughable. Why would we torture the prisoners?


I have 3 reports from Amnesty, HRW and the Red Cross which say the opposite. I also have 1 from the US army itself which you can check if you like.
Your definitions of torture are not really relevant since the current definitions were put together largely by bodies that have experience of all facets of torture - the Red Cross and Amnesty for example. I recently listened to a speech in Manchester by a South African monitor from Amnesty. During apartheid he was arrested and tortured in Pretoria. He had his testicles crushed so badly they had to be amputated and was beaten so badly he still finds difficulty walking. When he says that what the US are doing is torture, then I tend to think the correct response is to listen in humility and respect.

Anyway, as I say, the US admitted in May that it has tortured prisoners at Guantanemo, Abu-Grade and other prisons. It had to finally start to come clean about this since it was called to appear before the Geneva Committee on Torture. The US has, of course, opted out of the international Criminal Court but it has ratified the torture convention and so can be held to account (in the sense of a public shaming, which is all that is really possible).

Bear in mind that this committe takes a quasi-judicial approach so the tone is legalistic and does not indulge in hyperbole, conjecture or unsupported allegations. It generally understates criticism in order to avoid being refused access to detainees in the future and it's reports are normally completely non controvertial and comparatively restrained. The conclusions are, in that light, fairly damning and completely refute the US position on the issue of status, occurance and definitions.

We are not talking about a bit of roughhousing here as you seem to think.

You can read the report prepared by the US army itself here if you want to :
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4894001/#storyContinued

But I can summarise it fairly quickly : the following allegations were found to be 'credible and supported by witness testimony, physical evidence (in some cases) and/or statements from Red Cross and other officials who have had experience in the prisons converned.

Quote:
a. Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees;
b. Threatening detainees with a charged 9mm pistol;
c. Pouring cold water on naked detainees;
d. Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair;
e. Threatening male detainees with rape;
f. Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell;
g. Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.
h. Using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.

(T)he intentional abuse of detainees by military police personnel included the following acts:
a. Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet;
b. Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees;
c. Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing;
d. Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time;
e. Forcing naked male detainees to wear women’s underwear;
f. Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped;
g. Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them;
h. Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture;
i. Writing “I am a Rapest” (sic) on the leg of a detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked;
j. Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee’s neck and having a female Soldier pose for a picture;
k. A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee;
l. Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee;
m. Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees.

Those are the ones that the army itself has already accepted. Amnesty report several killings and mutilations of prisoners and I understand that Human Rights Watch have more.
http://hrw.org/campaigns/torture.htm

Here is the report of the committee on torture in full to round this off.
http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/docs/AdvanceVersions/CAT.C.USA.CO.2.pdf

Whatever you may say there is not a doubt in my mind that officially sanctioned torture has been widespread and systematic. You can talk about Sodium Pentathol all you like and call it laughable but I don't share your view and neither do many others.

As for the comment about not keeping civilians in jails....that is similar to your other comment on civilians, remember ?
Quote:
The US never killed a single civilian on purpose

Both statements are both so ridiculous that they are nearly funny. Even to engage with them is completely futile since anyone who can make statements like that seriously, is well beyond the reach of any logic or evidence that I can provide.

The US has deliberately classified prisoners as part civilian and part combatant in order to avoid the protections due to both. Therefore the geneva convention has been ignored since it applies to combatants and civil and international law has been ignored because they are not civilians. I think it uses the phrase 'unlawful combatants' which is a cynical and weasel definition which nobody else accepts. The fact is that the US is holding a HUGE number of civilians in jail at the moment including at least 2 british citizens, one of whom was kidnapped from Pakistan illegally, drugged and flown to Guantanamo bay. It has also made widespread use of 'Rendition' which is a term for illegal moving of prisoners around the globe. The reason is obvious - more extreme torture is possible in some parts of the world and the US has sought these out for some prisoners.

All in all I find your defence incredible. I also really cannot argue with your ethical/moral stance because I've not met one like it before.
I've never come across someone who would prefer to kill a close relative than let a terrorist 'escape' - it's a complete showstopper for me because I don't even know how to start trying to find common ground. I'm not being funny at all, I really have no way to approach that stance - I've tried to thing of a way and I'm unable to even start.

Obviously if we continue then one of us will probably get frustrated and it will degenerate into a slanging match which is something I always try to avoid. I think the best thing is I'll suimmarise my overall case and position, leave you to comment or not and call it a day at that. I'll put together a precis later on today and then call it a done deed.

Best wishes
Chris.
Moonspider
Once again, I am a recent newcomer and have not had the time to read through this entire thread, but I wish to go back to one earlier in which Bikerman referred in his last post. I forget to whom Bikerman was debating, but apparently he failed to some extent, so I'll try to take up the banner.

Bikerman wrote:

This is the passage in question..I quote :
Quote:
As for killing civilians, if the terrorists hide behind civilians, then we have no choice but to go through the civilians to get to the terrorists. Should the terrorists come out and make a fair fight of it, very few more civilians would die.


So I repeat my previous point. If a kidnapper had a relative of yours at gunpoint then would you consider it acceptible to get the guy at all costs (OK - trying if possible not to kill the relative, but if there is no other option then doing so) ? Most people would not regard that as a defensible course of action - there would be an outcry, in fact.
So this is another case of double standards. Because the civilians are not 'ours' then they are expendible in the war against the terrorists. We would not and do not accept that stance for outselves but it is 'necessary' and there is 'no choice' when it is the other guy.

Chris.


Just a quick argument, Chris. I believe you are comparing apples to oranges. If someone invades my home and takes my wife hostage, my goal is the safety of my wife, not harming the home invader. Punishing the criminal is secondary to the safety of my wife. Agreed?

In a war, the goals are many and vary from conflict to conflict. However, one goal is often the destruction or neutralization of enemy forces in pursuit of achieving the end political goals of the military conflict. The safety of civilians is usually secondary to military objectives, no? If blue force uses a civilian area as a “shield” (both as a deterrent and as a propaganda tool later if the site is attacked, arguably a common practice by sub-national entities or even countries utilizing the tactics of fourth-generation warfare), the red force would have much difficulty successfully prosecuting its campaign if it adhered to a rule of never attacking a target simply because it is located in a civilian area. Furthermore, if the red force adhered to such a high standard, every other current and future enemy of Country Red would adopt the same tactic.

It is a tactic especially effective when force blue is a sub-national entity or weaker nation facing a more powerful national entity. If Country Red is a democracy, the advantage of placing civilians in harms way increases dramatically because of the propaganda value of the bodies of women and children who died at the hands of the Red Forces. Unlike third generation wars, public relations play a far more vital role in fourth generation wars. In fact, I purport that public relations are actually more important than military victories in a fourth-generation war. (U.S.-Vietnam being a perfect example, where the United States won every battle and lost the war.)

I am by no means an expert on the laws of war, and will not pretend to be such. But I will try and use what knowledge I do have regarding civilians in combat areas. The laws of war (there is no single codified law adhered to by nations), are many. However, let’s look at what applie to this discussion.

Protocol 1 Article 44(3): “In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:”

Obviously when warring with sub-national entities like terrorist organizations, this rule is not adhered to by the terrorists. (It is also interesting to note that under Article 44(4), a combatant who does not meet the requirements set forth above forfeits his right to be a POW, although he or she is afforded other protections per Geneva Convention III.)

The rules governing civilians in a combat area fall under Part IV of Protocol 1. Among other things, Article 51 protects civilians from:
- Direct attacks or threat of attack, the purpose of which is to instill terror in the population (3)
- Indiscriminate attacks (this includes weapons lobbed with very limited or no guidance or where no military target is intended) (4)

The following are the most pertinent to my argument:

Article 51(5b): “An attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.”

A subjective prohibition, however it does concede that civilian deaths are acceptable if the military advantage anticipated is not excessive in relation.

Article 51(7): “The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.”

It is illegal, obviously, to use human shields to protect military targets. However, if a defender does use a “human shield,” the prohibition in 51(5b) still applies according to 51.8

So I will close by saying that the rules of war do not 100% prohibit warring parties from inflicting civilian casualties, even when used as human shields. It serves to limit them.

For those interested, Article 57 contains a litany of precautionary measures required to limit civilian casualties.

Reference: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/93.htm

Sorry, I guess I lied about it being quick. Wink

Respectfully,
Bikerman
Moonspider wrote:

Just a quick argument, Chris. I believe you are comparing apples to oranges. If someone invades my home and takes my wife hostage, my goal is the safety of my wife, not harming the home invader. Punishing the criminal is secondary to the safety of my wife. Agreed?
Absolutely.
Quote:

In a war, the goals are many and vary from conflict to conflict. However, one goal is often the destruction or neutralization of enemy forces in pursuit of achieving the end political goals of the military conflict. The safety of civilians is usually secondary to military objectives, no? If blue force uses a civilian area as a “shield” (both as a deterrent and as a propaganda tool later if the site is attacked, arguably a common practice by sub-national entities or even countries utilizing the tactics of fourth-generation warfare), the red force would have much difficulty successfully prosecuting its campaign if it adhered to a rule of never attacking a target simply because it is located in a civilian area. Furthermore, if the red force adhered to such a high standard, every other current and future enemy of Country Red would adopt the same tactic.
That's why I was very careful when setting the analogy. The US has set itself up as just that high standards authority in everything that Bush says. The war against the axis of evil for the good of civilisation....etc etc....you know the rhetoric.
My point is that there can be no justification for such military conflict because of this exact issue. It is known and, to an extent, presupposed that civilian casualties will happen and in some numbers. Couple that to the fact that the invasion was (IMHO) based on illegal and certainaly highly dubious grounds (the 3 lawyers I know who have an opinion all think it was illegal for the UK) then there can be no justification for accepting this loss, particularly since the UK/US troops are an invading army and, despite the press reports, the majority of the fighting originally was from Iraqi national insurgents and not from foreign terrorists - that may have changed now, I cannot say with any accuracy. This is one of the reasons that the new docrine of pre-emptive war is both tactically and practically wrong but is also morally and ethically wrong from my POV. Given that casualties are inevitable then one has to be very sure that one is acting in a necessary manner and not in a politically or ecoomically expedient manner only. Otherwise one is, I contend, no better than the opposition. To that end I would certainly put Bush and Blair on the same remedial scale of ethics as people such as Slobodon Milosevich for example.
It was always understood (if not always adhered to) that war was an act of self defense OR UN mandated intervention. Bush has changed the rules (probably to the approval of Huntington) in a way which is overtly only applicable to the US. No other country (apart from perhaps Israel, as in the recent Palestinian invasion) could possibly get away with a war of this type with the same justification. Nor, I suspect, would the US allow it to try. Imagine if India decided it really had better nuke Pakistan before Muscharev gets too close to Bush and manages to imported a huge amount of new armour and weaponry and destablise the Kashmir issue. The US would probably sell the weapons without too many qualms (including of course biological and chemical weaponry which the US still insists on the right to develop for itself - imagine if Saddam had insisted on a tour of the US weapons and nuclear facilities), since Pakistan has gone along with the 'war on terror'.

(I heartily wish that the US would find a different expression for dealing with problems by the way. War on poverty, war on drugs, war on terror. Apart from been logically and semantically meaningless, the impression is always that of brute force and ignorance against whatever problem,.)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,821306,00.html

I'll answer the rest later when I get into serious debating mode. At the moment I'm working on a recording of Elvis Costello's Shipbuilding that I've been trying to finish for days. Can't get the vocal line quite right.

Regards
Chris.
Moonspider
Bikerman wrote:
...The US would probably sell the weapons without too many qualms (including of course biological and chemical weaponry which the US still insists on the right to develop for itself - imagine if Saddam had insisted on a tour of the US weapons and nuclear facilities), since Pakistan has gone along with the 'war on terror'.


I have argued this one with people until I am blue in the face, and have honestly given up trying to convince anyone. But I try anyway.

From my own personal experience as a Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Defense Officer I assure you that the United States has no chemical or biological weapons program, nor do we have any operational weapons of either type in our inventories. I will admit that we have chemical warheads still awaiting destruction and once had active programs of both.

Biological weapons are illegal by the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (including toxins as well as pathogens).

The United States signed the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1993. (We signed the Geneva Protocol in 1975 but reserved the right to use defoliants and riot-control agents.)

Official U.S. policy is that we reserve the right to retaliate with nuclear weapons whenever attacked with biological or chemical weapons. (Because we are incapable of responding in kind except with the only WMD we have in our active inventory).

Take our facility at Fort Detrick (USAMRIID) as an example. All research is unclassified. Furthermore, research is limited by military restrictions. For example, we know that Ebola can remain dormant and spread by air later based upon the evidence at the outbreaks of Ebola Reston in Reston, Virginia years ago. However, we cannot conduct research at USAMRIID to find out how (even though knowing would be beneficial to fighting outbreaks) because to do so would give us knowledge of how to weaponize Ebola. Civilian facilities can do such research, but not military facilities.

There is also a very practical reason we no longer use biological or chemical weapons. They are extremely inaccurate and unpredictable. They can easily cause friendly casualties. If, heaven forbid, a strategic weapon is needed, nuclear weapons are far more accurate and predictable.

Some references:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/cbw/bw.htm
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/cbw/cw.htm
ocalhoun
Moonspider wrote:
(It is also interesting to note that under Article 44(4), a combatant who does not meet the requirements set forth above forfeits his right to be a POW, although he or she is afforded other protections per Geneva Convention III.)

Yeah, that about sums it up.

Also, you've yet to convince me that US POW prisons are full of civilians. Sure you could go into one and ask "Who here is a civilian?", but then all of them would say they were. You could ask the guards the same question and they'd answer "Almost none of them." Just because someone wasn't armed when he was arrested dosn't mean that he wasn't planning on being a suicide bomber tomorrow and that he's an innocent civilian.

As for some of the things that were called torture there, yes some were pretty bad, but some were rediculous.
Being threatened by a dog? That happened to me all the time when I was delivering pizza! If I had known that was torture, I could be rich with lawsuit money by now!
Being threatened with rape or with a loaded gun? That can happen to you in any bad 'hood. It's a crime, but not torture.
Simulated electrical torture? "Oh, God! Not simulated torture! Please no!"
But yes, I'll say it again, because if I don't, you'll neglect to notice it: Some of those things were bad, and might even be called psychological torture.

However; To get back to the point:
1) How does this death toll site find out about this if it is so bad?
2) How does that site determine which ones if any are civilians?
3) How do you die from these 'tortures'? (I can't see being photographed naked or being threatened with a handgun as a cause of death.)
Related topics
What football team do u support?
Montoya
Bush Poll
America's Army
The downfall of american society
Just an article that got my attention...
what do u know about Egypt?
Huricane
The net matter is long:
Frankfurt Motor Show, 2005
INCREDIBLE THINGS HAPPEN IN AMERICA... In a simple 20$ bill
america - when will it stop?
Does the existance of "God" really matter?
No matter how see it women like a guy who has 2 of these 3
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.