War!

[Gandalf White]

Perhaps we should give both sides a sword and see whowins...oh wait the Americans and coalition forces would be massacered and that would not be fair or better yet one on one Bush and Huissain..If they both kill each other the world will be short two idiots Heh, I had a good joke about you, but I will refrain because of fear of warning points. :rolleyes: If we were on equal footing our coalition forces would still win, just at the loss of many many civilians.... and you wouldn't want that.

[ms Greenleaf]

Why?

[Gandalf White]

I judged your opinion based on previous stances you have taken, where you expressed extreme displeasure when any Iraqui civilian's lives were taken, so I merely thought that you would continue on in this way. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Dr. Ransom]

Intestingly enough, Dubbya has a resting heart rate of 43. Which is better than anybody in the NBA. He acheived this amazing level of fitness two ways:
1# Another silver spoon benifit, genetics is at least 60% of it.
2# He has faithfully worked out 3 days a week for many years (I thinking it's about 30 at least)

So, I personally believe that a one-on-one fight between Bush and Saddam wouldn't even be a fight. I think he could kill that evil man w/ his bare hands.

Ransom

[Ciryaher]

For your information, Japan is forbidden to possess a military beyond a small defensive force. Saying that Iraq is the only nation, or that only third-world nations are the subject of military limitations is incorrect.

Also, India, China, and Pakistan all possess nuclear weapons and none of them are in Europe. Argentina and South Africa were two other nations that attempted to have a nuclear weapons program but stopped, having decided against it.

Thirdly, SCUD missiles are capable of carrying a chemical, biological, or nuclear payload. In the Persian Gulf War, several SCUDs were launched with chemical payloads, but I'm not sure whether they were shot down or hit.

And you saying that the Coalition would get massacred in a hand-to-hand fight is ridiculous. Our troops are well trained in hand-to-hand combat with blade, fist, foot, and body. I think we'd do better in fistfights with the enemy than in gun battles. After all, our soldiers are well fed and trained, whereas the Iraqi regulars/irregulars I would suspect to be underfed and not well-trained. The Republican Guard would be a different story, though, and would put up more of a physical fight.

[Beleg]

White
What I gather from your statements, Beleg, is this. "In order to be fair we should give the lunatic Saddam WoMD and other weapons. This way he can go down in a fair fight."

As amusing as i find the above statement i beg to differ. i am not saying that Saddam should be given weapons or not, i just want to say that Standards shouldn't be dual, Iraqis have the same right to defend her homeland as that of her neighbours and thus should be allowed to keep the same weapons (if they can prepare themselves or buy it.) themselves. And if you really feel the weapons are dangerous and mass murdurers, then why not bann them completely? Why does America have the right to use Scud and Iraq not?



Add Brazil too, who abondoned its program.





For your information, Japan is forbidden to possess a military beyond a small defensive force. Saying that Iraq is the only nation, or that only third-world nations are the subject of military limitations is incorrect.

Japan has thousands of American soldiers defending its solidarity and after what Japanese have gone through i daresay they will take every step deemed possible to delay a war, if any. Iraq meanwhile has no such thing and they are subjected to possible threats from there Neighbours. Enimity between Isreal and Iraq is not a closed affair.

the only people who want equalty are the weak and less fortunit. in war the consept is to be supior not equil. and Africa will be liberated in the not to distant future. third world countrys are the lowest class of moderen civalized sociaty attributed with substandered living conditions; no clean or runing whater, poor septic and unsanatary like conditions, verry high unemployment rate, agriculture is chief source of income, outdated and or the most primative forms of tecnology. little and distant scools of the most elamentry sort, etc. etc.

I don't understand your logic? Your thinking in my opinion portrays Bush's thoughts. If your friend who has the same genes as you bully's you then wouldn't you want to become his equal? wouldn't it seems unfair to you (and it would be unfair) that he is bullying you just because he has more power and is using this power unfairly to submit you to his will.

outdated and or the most primative forms of tecnology.

Pakistan, India and China produce Atomic Bombs, they are aware of the processes of making the Hydrogen Bombs, they have some of the most complex missile systems in the world, they use infra-red rays and ultra voilet beams in their defense. Out-dated technology eh?

little and distant scools of the most elamentry sort, etc. etc.

Must i remind you that Europeons countries readily accept immigrents from these most elamentory schools most readily and they do wonderful things for these countires? True the educational conditions are not always great and to call them as primitive and out-dated is absurdity.




no clean or runing whater, I should be dead or atleast severely effected by Malaria and other diseases but I am not. Clean water ia avalable for more then 70% of the total population.

Your comments are more then a bit offending for some. None of the Third World countries justifies your points and even the most depleted of the countries have something or other that negates your claims.

[Gandalf White]

As amusing as i find the above statement i beg to differ. i am not saying that Saddam should be given weapons or not, i just want to say that Standards shouldn't be dual, Iraqis have the same right to defend her homeland as that of her neighbours and thus should be allowed to keep the same weapons (if they can prepare themselves or buy it.) themselves. And if you really feel the weapons are dangerous and mass murdurers, then why not bann them completely? Why does America have the right to use Scud and Iraq not? Ok, what we can draw from this statement is this. There are two solutions to dual standards.
1) The whole world disarms of all weapons including biological, chemical, nuclear, etc. One or two problems though. (a) It is never going to happen (b) Rogue nations would still produce some WoMD and be an incredible threat to the weaponless world.
2) We freely hand out WoMD etc. to all countries, just to make it fair.
Take your pick, Beleg, although I prefer the way we have it now.

[Dr. Ransom]

To base your argument on "quality" you have to have the underlying premise that Iraq and the US are equal.

Plain and simple, in words that you can understand:

Anyone who thinks the US and Iraq are "equal" might as well be living in an entirely Nazi Europe, because that what would have happend if more people used that same argument just 60 years ago. Think about it.

Do you even believe in good and evil? Are there any moral standards at all? Because if you don't, this entire argument is pointless.

If you do, than all we need to discuss is how to use that in real life situations. Such as this one.

[ms Greenleaf]

Originally posted by Ciryaher
For your information, Japan is forbidden to possess a military beyond a small defensive force. Saying that Iraq is the only nation, or that only third-world nations are the subject of military limitations is incorrect.

Also, India, China, and Pakistan all possess nuclear weapons and none of them are in Europe. Argentina and South Africa were two other nations that attempted to have a nuclear weapons program but stopped, having decided against it.

Thirdly, SCUD missiles are capable of carrying a chemical, biological, or nuclear payload. In the Persian Gulf War, several SCUDs were launched with chemical payloads, but I'm not sure whether they were shot down or hit.

And you saying that the Coalition would get massacred in a hand-to-hand fight is ridiculous. Our troops are well trained in hand-to-hand combat with blade, fist, foot, and body. I think we'd do better in fistfights with the enemy than in gun battles. After all, our soldiers are well fed and trained, whereas the Iraqi regulars/irregulars I would suspect to be underfed and not well-trained. The Republican Guard would be a different story, though, and would put up more of a physical fight.

Firstly the Iraqi's are desperate...they know the land...

Second. BY the def of third world I ment this

Africa and Asia are third world because humans lived there first...something very screwed up like that...stupid english language

Anhd lastly there is no good and evil therre is a grey and then the wonderful colours of iunsanity.


Oh and BTW working out 30 min three times a week is definetly not alot. I do way more especially in the summer.

[Ciryaher]

Yes, but you're not a President who is working basically every minute he's not asleep.

A third-world country, by definition, is a pre-industrialized nation. Other nations, such as China, are industrialized. Finally, you have the post-industrial nations such as the US and Britain.

[ms Greenleaf]

Well I was right bout the whole usage being wrong thing...

BTW Huissain is no where near as insane as his son. In many ways Huissain is a lot better than many of the other leaders of countries.

1 equal education for everyone..not just boys everyone can get an education there... unless the schools are accidently bombed.

[7doubles]

you talk abought all theese countrys with a~bombs and other such wepons but that is not indestry. most of the scientist who work and build these labs are germans and russians. because they are the only ones capable of uderstanding the phisics and have the access to the formulas outside of the U.S Great Britt and china. meanwhile the iraqi people still have to buy fresh food daily becaue 9 out of 10 of them have never seen a refridgerater in their life and 4 out of 10 dont even own iceboxes and in the desert no less. i challenge enybody to name one product that has a tag made in iraq. you cant. the oil isn't realy even a primary indestry but rather a commodaty because only the sha's own the oil. the people don't see a dime so it realy doesn't matter who controlls it. it plays no bearing on the peoples everyday life anyhow. amd wepons of mass destruction dont make civilions technologicly advanced it makes the millatary technologicly advanced

[Beleg]

most of the scientist who work and build these labs are germans ad russians. because they are the only ones capable of uderstanding the phisics and have the access to the formulas outside of the U.S Great Britt and china.

I challenge you to name a Russain Scientist that helped in the Atomic Program of Pakistan.

And what fact do you have that they are the onlyones who have been enriched by God to understand physics and other sciences? Is Physcis an otherworldly subject that can only be understand by the German's, Russain's, British and French?

And we aren't specifically talking about Iraq, we are rather talking about Third World countries in Asia and Europe.


1) The whole world disarms of all weapons including biological, chemical, nuclear, etc.

Offcourse this can't happen. What i am saying is that if one country can produce Chemical Weapons, and has the right to use it then why not other countries?

Rogue nations would still produce some WoMD and be an incredible threat to the weaponless world.

Defination of Rogue nation please? As most of the people in America think of Iraq as a rogue nation then are people in here who also think of America as a rogue nation.

Do you even believe in good and evil? Are there any moral standards at all? Because if you don't, this entire argument is pointless.

i do believe in good and evil and i also believe that what might be good for you might be evil for me. And if you are talking about Moral standards then what moral reason is there for america to bomb on innocent people, destroy cities filled with innocent people. What reason has America to attack on iRAQ? Has Iraq attacked America? no. Has Iraq been the offendor? No. If it all comes to moral reasons then there will never be fighting and no wars. It all depends upon the strategic advantage a country can glean from occupying another because it would help her in the ultimate race of who will rule the world. And if you are talking about Moral Standards, then Iraqi's were wrong to opress Kuwaities same as USA is wrong to attack Iraq, for regardless of any other matter, people will die, area will become depleted economy will suffer, poverty will increase, human devolpment index will suffer. if everyone acts upon moral standards then there is no need of any war.

There is no comparison between Iraq and USA and i am not trying to make one, judging every country in the same light doesn't mean that there is a comparison between them. Rules should be the same for every country, offcourse the stage of tecnological defense can differ and so can the quality and quantity of industries and things produce. My defination of dual is that one country is allowed to do what she wants, and other country is stopped from precisely what the former country is doing.

meanwhile the iraqi people still have to buy fresh food daily becaue 9 out of 10 of them have never seen a refridgerater in their life and 4 out of 10 dont even own iceboxes and in the desert no less.

is that your personal opinion or facts. if facts then from where have you gotten them?

i challenge enybody to name one product that has a tag made in iraq. you cant. the oil isn't realy even a primary indestry If you from even one day totally stop the production of all in the world, the world will be totally jammed. Most industries are based on oil or use oil as one of their by-ingridients.

[Dr. Ransom]

Here's the point I'm trying to make. All our arguments are based on the premises (pluralize that word how?) that we have. For instance, I don't believe in international law as the same as national. International law is only enforcable based on agreements made by countries. So I perfer to use the word treaties instead. Second, I believe that the type of geneside that Saddam has been involved w/ for decades is absolutly evil no matter WHO does it: you, me, Frace, Germany, US, Israel, or the remote Tu-Tu tribe.

Also, as I have heard from some Iraqi nationals "anyone who opposes this war just doesn't understand the evil." Now I am NOT one to look for good or evil under every bush (no pun intended... lol, yeah, that was bad), but I do believe that to think that the fact that the US and Iraq abide by the same rules is rediculus in the highest degree. It is almost pointless arguing w/ someone who truely thinks that it's just fine to let or give Saddam the capability to destroy millions more than he already has (well, it's fun though :-)). And don't even think of saying this if for oil, because we're spending more on this war than the oil is even worth. That and the fact that we've made it very clear that all the oil belongs to the Iraqi people and will be used to rebuild Iraq.

Ironically, the reality of the undercover deals going on is why France is so resolute against any action ever taken. Why? Because they make a killing brokering all the deals... Interestingly, Mr. French President (can't spell for the life of me...:-) said today that this war is a "moral, political, and tatical mistake." I find that very amusing since the french millitary tactics leave much to be desired (unless you're German), and have never been very concerned about morals either.... political? ok, they win that one.

(too tired and stupid to proof-read, I apologize if you made it through this tirade.. lol night- Ransom)

[Beleg]

That was a nice post. D.R.
i completely understand your point of view and agree with some of things you are stating.

Second, I believe that the type of geneside that Saddam has been involved w/ for decades is absolutly evil no matter WHO does it: you, me, Frace, Germany, US, Israel, or the remote Tu-Tu tribe.

Who doesn't. But that doesn't give America the right to jump in the crisis with a war. No matter what Saddam is doing, (0ffcourse he is doing evil) it is the internal matter of iraq. if you really want to change the government of Iraq then do it in a way that blood is not shed, (even that would be illegal.) The question is who will pay for the blood of the million Iraqies that would die in the war, of whom most are innocent soldiers and civilans who are defending this country. The image America will form on the heart of Iraqi people from this war would not be of a helper but of an opressor.

Now I am NOT one to look for good or evil under every bush (no pun intended... lol, yeah, that was bad), LoL.

And don't even think of saying this if for oil, because we're spending more on this war than the oil is even worth. That and the fact that we've made it very clear that all the oil belongs to the Iraqi people and will be used to rebuild Iraq. Will it be? Only time will tell, but i fear this promise wont be kept. America is fighting this war for the oil. iraq has a centerized position in Middle-East which can give it a big strategic advantage to watch over her more powerful adverseries. And Oil definately is a cause. There is a difference between said and done. At the start of the war, your government said that Cities wont be attack and religious places will also not be attacked and right now most of the emienent religious parlours are eiher lying in ruin or are severely damaged.
And the idea that America is not fighting this war for Oil to me is utterly ridiculus. Everyone knows that Oil resources are deterorating and they still haven't found a plausible substitute for oil and in the near future whoever will control the oil wells would be in a great position. you can say that not all reasons are due to Oil but saying that Oil is not a cause is ridikulus.

so basically your point is that you are attacking Iraq because you want to free the people from the tyranny of Saddam?

[7doubles]

russias as in reference to cuba on third world countrys
the icebox facts i heard on bill mar
oil is an industry controled by o.p.e.c
under the athority of the united arabian sha's. not the iraqi people in any way. my explanation came after the word "commodity" in my last post
you cant do the phisics without the secret formula. only a handful of unaversitys in the world teach nucular phisics and all are closely supervised by the c.i.a and n.s.a the nucular regulatory commition and interpoll. also there is only a few places in the world that you can find pichblend so they have to buy the urainiom, an there is only one country where thats possible, the one with the most that broke up abought 10 yrs ago and and needs money bad to get out of the depretion their millatary put them in.

[Idril]

I found this stat - I thought I'd post it - it may interest some...

Since the Second World War THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT has bombed 21 countries

China 1945-46, 1950-53
Korea 1950-53
Guatemala 1954, 1960, 1967-69
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-61
Congo 1964
Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Lebanon 1983-84
Grenada 1983
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1980s
Nicaragua 1980s
Panama 1989
Bosnia 1995
Sudan 1998
Former Yugoslavia 1999
Iraq 1991-20?? and 2003 -??
Afghanistan 1998, 2001-??

[Rangerdave]

Hello All.

I have been taking a back seat in this discussion, mainly because I enjoy watching the show.

I just wanted to pop in a correct a few mistakes that I have noticed thus far.
Please remember, I do this only so everyone will have the correct information to work with. This is in no way a critical response, just a friendly correction.

Teachers are all the same arn't they[I]

[i]Originally posted by ms Greenleaf
I beleive that according the actual definition of third world country only NOrth America is 1st world
Europe is 2nd
and Asia and Africa 3

You are mostly right. The use of First, Second and Third World designations are out-dated and no longer used by the US State dept. However, the still show up in casual use. The original use was as follows First World: Industralized Western Nations. Second World: Communist Nations. Third World: Underdeveloped Nations.

The newer system is much simplier. They simply refer to a Nation as either Industrialized, Developing, or Underdeveloped.
Examples of this would be.... Industrialized: US,UK, France, Germany, Sweeden, etc etc etc. Developing: Jordan, Tanzania, Vietnam, North Korea... et al. Underdeveloped: Haiti, Ethiopia, Somalia, Vatican City....Just kidding on the last one
I hope that makes sense to all of you.
------------------


Originally posted by faila
Does the NSA count as the military? Im seeing if I can join the gov agency.

No. The National Security Agencey is an independant part of the Executive Branch. The majority of NSA employees are non military, however they do secund military cryptologists and other signal operators. My advice to you if you are interested in a career in the NSA is to persue a Master's degree in either Cryptology or Finite mathamatics. And be prepared to work in a cramped cubicle in the basement with all the other intel-geeks (their term for themselves)
------------------


Originally posted by 7doubles
we never sold iraq weppons.

This is a rather sticky wicket as my Professor used to say. It is true that we never sold US manufactured weapon systems to Iraq. What we did do is finance the Iraqi initial military build up. During the Iran/Iraq war, the US government underwrote Hussein's expenses accrued in the conflict. Basicly we gave him a blank check, the reason he bought Russian material is that Russian weapon systems are generally cheaper and require less training. Although they do tend to be less effective.

Also, roughly during the Reagan administration. 12 Iraqi senior military commanders, were trained in methods of combating popular and civil uprisings at the School of the Americas at Fort Benning, Georgia.

So it is true that we did not sell weapons directly to the Iraqi's, we simply financed their buys and trained their leaders.
-----------------------------


Originally posted by FREEDOM!
Bush is a well respected man, I trust him with my life! You can support a politician, you can admire a politician, you can even feel pride in a politician. But never, never trust one.

When heads are up for the chop, and its a choice of him or you. Let's face it. It's you.




I hope this has been helpful.
and thank you for all remaining civilized. I'm proud.

RD

[Eriol]

I have recently read most of the war-related threads. I want to say, first of all, that I am a great fan of America and of Americans in general. The threads are visited by people from all over the world, and are really interesting. I will post some of the reflections that they spurred in my mind.

Factual mistakes

There seem to be many small matters who are controversial but shouldn’t really be. Subjects in which the truth should be easily discoverable. I urge the active participants to do some research on them, to clarify the debate:

1) Who exactly violated which UN resolutions? I know Iraq and Israel are violators. I guess the present war is a violation, and that puts the US in this category. But as long as people use this as a standard of “fairness” or moral quality (a standard with which I do not agree, by the way), it would help if the facts were laid down clearly.

2) Were the UN inspectors making progress? Did they think war was unnecessary? I have seen conflicting statements on the threads regarding this. Surely there must be an easy way to establish it.

3) SCUD status. Are SCUDS weapons of mass destruction? Can they act as one? (What EXACTLY is a WMD? A definition of this would help a lot).

There may be others. You get the idea: easily ascertainable facts should be... ascertained.

Doubtful Interpretation

In this heading I place some statements that are said as a sure thing, or as a fact, but in fact are interpretations, sometimes resting on very slim foundations:

1) This war is for oil. I think there is little doubt that oil is a factor. Why isn’t Bush going after all the dictators of the world? More specifically, why is he not worried about the much more threatening North Koreans? But saying that oil is a factor does not mean that it is the only goal, or even the main goal. This applies also to “imperalistic reasons”, as if the US wanted a province in the Middle-East. On the other hand, it also applies for “liberation” and “regime change”. Saying that the war is for any single reason, be it selfish or noble, is a great simplification. Undoubtedly there are some people, very high in the chain of command, who believe that oil is the main reason, others who have imperialistic dreams, others who want regime change, others who want the liberation of Iraqis... The bottom line is that what any one person assumes is THE reason for the war is a simplification.

2) Rogue nations. This would also be helped by a definition. Some people use UN violations, other people use human rights violations, other people use WMD... But the sad fact is that, today, the US is viewed by many people (and not only in the Middle East) as a rogue nation. I disagree very strongly with that, but it is undeniable that some people think this way. The preemptive war doctrine is the main reason for that in my view. This should have been much more elaborated by Bush & Blair. Instead of convincing others, they pronounced it a preemptive strike and paid no attention to dissenters. Which leads us to...

3) The world policeman. Is the US the world policeman? I have heard this in a negative way for years, but now I am hearing it from American themselves, in a proud way. Examine this concept for a while. The policeman acts under the law, is sworn to uphold the law. What is the law? Some people would say the UN, and this would straightway disqualify the US as a policeman, since it went to war regardless of the UN. I don’t think the UN is the law, though. What is the law then? There are two conflicting views: Moral reasons (divided in two options: natural law and utilitarianism), and “might makes right”. Both are exemplified in the war threads. Utilitarianism is a reasoning like this: it is worthwhile to have 500 (or 5000) Americans killed to save from oppression so many million Iraqis. I will address it later. Natural law would be a good way to go about it in my opinion, but it is clearly against war, any war, unless it is in self-defense... which takes us back to the preemptive strike problem. “Might makes right” is abhorrent to all non-Americans, and (I think) to most Americans. “We are doing it because we are the strongest and the best” is... shortsighted. In any way the status of world policeman is disputed.

4)The UN. What exactly is the UN? Some people think it is the beginning of a World Government, as depicted in science fiction books and movies. They think this is a good goal and support it because of that. (Interestingly enough, the main reason people think a World Government is a good idea is that it would end wars). This view is more prevalent among non-Americans. I won’t go into details about why I think a World Government is a terrible idea, but right now the UN is nothing like that. It is an institution formed by unelected bureaucrats who have the idea that they know what is best for the unenlightened people of the world. It has a long historic of decisions made to spite the US, check on the happenings of Johannesburg (Rio +10) recently to see what I’m talking about. There is no legal or moral reason why the US should pay any attention to the UN when deciding about war, or anything else for that matter. And this, of course, applies to any country. When we take into account the structure of the Security Council and the veto of the Big Five the whole thing becomes a joke – or rather, a fossil from the Cold War.

Deep fallacies

In this area I will address some modes of thinking which in my opinion are bound to lead to nonsensical results. The fact that they are mostly prevalent makes me very sad.

1) Group-thinking: This is my strongest reaction when I browse the threads, I see most if not all people indulging in group-thinking. WE are attacking Iraq... THE WORLD is against it... THEY hate US... and so on. Please, people, realize that these concepts are void! The accurate description is this: a bunch of people from that big landmass called America and from some other places (that island close to Europe, that bigger island in the other side of the world...) is attacking a bunch of people in the Middle-East. They are doing it because a much smaller bunch of people, their leaders and associated bureaucrats, ordered them to. The people being attacked is resisting. Just that. Now analyze this, their reasons, their motivation, but as tempting as it is, don’t indulge in WE/THEY thinking. Even if you support the war, voted for Bush, and are helping in any way besides TV cheering (shudder), you are not part of the WE who decided this war. YOU are not hated by anybody. Even the Al-Qaeda militants who hate America and call it the Great Satan don’t hate YOU, they hate a concept (a very foolish thing to do, by the way). Don’t fall in the same trap. If you must hate, hate specific people, not THEY. Hating THEY is extraordinarily silly.

The greatest propaganda trick of the last century (courtesy of the Nazis, by the way, but followed by everybody) is the equating of WE with our country, as if they were one and the same. We are not our country, we are individuals. (The claim that the government is WE is even more laughable than the claim that the country is WE).

2) Who judges evil? This is related to the above. Identifying Evil with a group is a clear mistake, the mistake made by Al-Qaeda. "Americans are evil" is a big fallacy... but so is "Muslims are evil" (I’ve seen it around, even if perhaps not in this forum). But ultimately, we cannot judge even individuals without a LOT more information. Is Saddam evil? Compare him with other dictators. Compare him with his neighbors. And when it gets to comparisons it becomes really messy. Who is more evil, Saddam or Kim Il-Jong? What about Mugabe? (We keep forgetting China, the elephant in the room). The “evilness” of a dictator is subjective, and most if not all of us receive only biased information, propaganda. Saddam gassed his own people... Saddam violated UN resolutions... Unfortunately these two accusations apply to the US as well (remember Waco?), and no one thinks Janet Reno is as evil as Saddam. Each of us must be very careful in deciding who is EVIL enough to merit forceful action, as opposed to prayer. Curious, isn’t it? Waco is seen as a failure, a mistake, only perhaps under the responsibility of Reno & Clinton, but when Saddam gasses Kurds (not “his own people” by HIS own definition, and a disputed episode in any event) he is EVIL.

3) Killing to save lives? Does that make sense? This would need a very long analysis of utilitarianism and natural law, but it bears thinking. Why is a human life important? Why is it valuable? Is it reasonable to kill a man to save two men? Who will do the killing? Are the deaths of the two men CERTAIN? Is anything future certain? (Gandalf said, “despair is for those who can see all ends. I can’t”, or something like that). Can anyone see all ends and state that killing so many hundreds of Americans, British, Australians, etc., as well as much more Iraqis, is a GOOD deed under utilitarianism, a deed that would save more lives than it costs? And at least Gandalf was there fighting in the front line. Is it a good deed to SEND people to their deaths for such a reason? How many of those soldiers would get back home if they could? The army is one of the few modern endeavours in which you cannot “quit”, not after the war begins. Note that this assumes utilitarianism is correct, an assumption which I do not accept. In any way, I am not thinking that anyone who answers yes to these questions is EVIL (hehe, I will not fall into my own trap). I just think these questions are worth pondering.

[Dr. Ransom]

Amazing post Eriol. I would love to react point-by-point, but I don't have the time right now. Anyway, I'll pick a small way I disagree w/ you (overall, I agree.)

Group-thinking: This is my strongest reaction when I browse the threads, I see most if not all people indulging in group-thinking. WE are attacking Iraq... THE WORLD is against it... THEY hate US... and so on. Please, people, realize that these concepts are void! The accurate description is this: a bunch of people from that big landmass called America and from some other places (that island close to Europe, that bigger island in the other side of the world...) is attacking a bunch of people in the Middle-East. They are doing it because a much smaller bunch of people, their leaders and associated bureaucrats, ordered them to. The people being attacked is resisting. Just that. Now analyze this, their reasons, their motivation, but as tempting as it is, don’t indulge in WE/THEY thinking. Even if you support the war, voted for Bush, and are helping in any way besides TV cheering (shudder), you are not part of the WE who decided this war. YOU are not hated by anybody. Even the Al-Qaeda militants who hate America and call it the Great Satan don’t hate YOU, they hate a concept (a very foolish thing to do, by the way). Don’t fall in the same trap. If you must hate, hate specific people, not THEY. Hating THEY is extraordinarily silly.

I hold the very American belief that citizens are responsable to a certian extent for their country. I do use the phrase "we" when I refer to the US or our allies. Here's why:

1. My pocket check stubs fund the war.
2. I have a huge amount of control over my government in my right to vote (a right which was dearly bought my thousands of dead Americans).
3. Many of our soldiers in iraq are personal friends of mine, or friends of friends. Right now, they are all volenteers, but if it came to a draft, I'd be there too.
4. Al-Qaeda hates my guts. I am the epitimy of what they hate. An 18 yr old educated American who is not only politically active, but a faithful Christian as well. I support every concept which they hate. And if Al-Qaeda didn't hate Americans, please explain the brudal murder of thousands of them on 9/11.

So when I use the term "we" I it is well defined. I agree w/ you though about using the term "they". Because nobody really knows who "they" is unless I explain anyway. But as far as "we" is concerned, I am an American.

Great Post. -Ransom

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Eriol
Killing to save lives? Does that make sense? This would need a very long analysis of utilitarianism and natural law, but it bears thinking. Why is a human life important? Why is it valuable? Is it reasonable to kill a man to save two men? Who will do the killing? Are the deaths of the two men CERTAIN? Is anything future certain?..... Can anyone see all ends and state that killing so many hundreds of Americans, British, Australians, etc., as well as much more Iraqis, is a GOOD deed under utilitarianism, a deed that would save more lives than it costs?

But isn't state sanctioned "killing" sometimes a necessary evil? If the only way to stop mass genocide of innocent people is to directly involve yourself into that situation to stop it? Even if that means that the enemy will be shooting back at you and you at him? Even if it means that some will kill and some will be killed, doesn't that justify trying to save innocent men, women and children from being needlessly slaughtered? I would think the greater evil would be to sit back and watch it happen. The Bible says that for someone who knows to do good and doesn't do it, that is sin. To me, a hands-off attitude when innocents are involved makes us evil as well when we (as a free-nation) allow such travesty to continue unabated.

Originally posted by Eriol
Is it a good deed to SEND people to their deaths for such a reason? How many of those soldiers would get back home if they could? The army is one of the few modern endeavours in which you cannot “quit”, not after the war begins.

Anybody who joins the military these days, CHOOSES to do so. It is obvious that they understand what they are getting themselves into. They know they are the defense of their country. That fact alone verifies the possibility that they will have to do just that. I doubt someone joined the army and down the road said, "What? We have to fight in this outfit? I just thought it was some sort of exercise program where I could play games and get my college education paid for!" That is why our soldiers and military personel should be honored. They knew the risks, they knew what their dedication to their country entailed and still joined anyway. They trained and trained for the specific purpose of something like Iraq occuring. That's their jobs, their career, and I would think they do it proudly. Sure they would rather be here with their families. Who wouldn't. But they knew the stakes when they went in.

Now that's sacrifice.

[Eriol]

Well, Dr. Ransom, I think you are a nice guy (though I didn't ask Nenya :D ). I think I was not clear in my post (quite probable -- it was written in a rush of feelings), because your objections pretty much confirm what I was thinking. (The same phenomenon may happen again! Sorry if it does.)

First, there is a gradation between agreeing, supporting and acting. As I gather you support this war. Good for you. But you are not acting in it, and as valuable as your support is, it bears little to none effects on the actual conduct of the war. This is why any criticism of you, personally, is foolish. If someone is opposed to this war, they should attack Bush, Blair, and the people associated to them, since they are the ones who give the orders. Of course your money supports the government, and your vote is your tool in changing it, but both -- taxes and voting -- are "blank checks", so that these assertions do not automatically classify all Americans in the same category as you. Even people who voted for Bush can disagree with this war with no inconsistency. So the word "we" includes, by your definition (people who vote and pay taxes), people who range the spectrum of opinions for and against the war. Isn't it silly to criticize you, Dr. Ransom, because of Bush's actions, even if you support them? Imagine if you didn't support them! And, of course, the same thing happens in all countries... including Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course this comment of mine is directed to people who say "Americans are ....." or "Muslims are...." or "French are ...." -- what I called group-thinkers -- not to you specifically (this addresses 1. and 2.).

On 3. I suppose the average american soldier was looking at a career of defending the borders, or perhaps spending some years at an overseas base. Before 9/11 there was no imminent conflict in view (or rather, imminent conflicts were not a matter of public debate). So my question is simply this: if they are volunteers, are they allowed to leave? From what I know of military discipline and law, the answer is "no way". So I would not say they are volunteers in the strict sense. Some of them, at least, may be embroiled in something over their heads. (Of course this is just speculation... but I'm really annoyed at the lack of the "quitting option" in the military, in any country).

4. This is exactly what I was talking about. Al-Qaeda hates "Americans", and you see where that led them. This is a nonsensical way of thinking. Whatever else 9/11 may have been, it was DUMB. Brilliant tactics, perhaps, fine coordination, fine planning, but making America turn against the Muslim world as a block (what is happening right now) is plain dumb. And America's reaction is following the same road. Sure Al-qaeda hates "Americans", but this is an abstract concept. Much more than an "American", you are Dr. Ransom. You say you support every concept they hate, and you are right. But this only shows that hating mere concepts is dumb -- if they are BOUND to hate you by their ideology, even though they have never seen you or spoken with you or even though you never lifted a finger against them (unlike some other Americans which they would probably feel justified in hating), isn't that just dumb?

(Did I say Al-qaeda did not hate Americans? Forgive me then, I did not mean that. I meant that hating "Americans" is a nonsensical concept. I think they are nonsensical. Their hate is real, but brutally misguided. If they should hate anyone, it should be the leaders of the Arab nations who ally themselves with their "Great Satan" -- for starters. But of course hating is in itself uncalled for... at least in Christianism, I think in Islam as well.)

People who hate generalizations are voodooists! Imagine bin Laden puncturing an Uncle Sam doll! Would that anger you? Would that anger you more or less than if he was puncturing a Dr. Ransom doll? If he is alive he is doing something like this all the time, and urging others to do it as well. When he really acts (as opposed to just hating) he draws the anger of the entire world upon him, as happened just after 9/11. The great danger for America is not bin Laden, or Saddam -- the great danger is in acquiring the same mindset as that of the voodooists. It is happening. It worries me to no end.

Ultimately, there are only two ways to concern about other people, such as the victims of 9/11: whether you feel for them as fellow human beings, the only generalization that applies (an universal generalization...), or you divide them in Americans, British, French... and then you are making little dolls. There is no "American", no "British". I think following the first is the only way to go -- but then you are bound to feel the same for a dead Iraqi as for a dead American. (even though you admire the country and culture of America -- as I do -- much more than the country and culture of Iraq -- of which I unfortunately know much less about, especially regarding their culture).

If you follow the first, of course fellow human beings in need of help can be found in every street, there is no need to cross half the world to help others...

EDIT: I did not see Thorin's post before posting. I addressed some of his comments, esp. about the "volunteer state" of the army. And in fact I think most Coalition (especially Americans -- since in other countries support for the war is less clear) soldiers would be volunteers in the strict sense, believing in the war for its moral reasons, but I worry about those who would like to leave. And I would like to say this too: Of course you should do good when you know it. And this is very literal: YOU should DO good when you know it, not an amorphous WE who should CHEER and URGE good instead of doing it. It is an individual task, and it is hard enough to do it, ourselves.

I think the best way to state my position about this is: It's the greatest sacrifice to get injured, or killed, in order to save lives -- but not to kill in order to save lives. Don't think I do not admire the soldiers' sacrifice. It would be even more admirable if they did not kill other people to achieve their goals.

(Perhaps a thread about the morality of killing to save lives is in order...)

[Dr. Ransom]

lol, I've managed to confuse myself. Anway, I agree w/ you. There is no point in "hating" a block of people. Personally I don't think there is a point in hating anybody, though I do believe that God has ordained governments to thwort evil and promote justice. Mostly though, generlizations are just used as a time saver in conversation. When I refer to being "at war with Iraq," I just leave it as an assumption that we (lol, another generalization, sneaky little things...) are at war w/ Saddam and his army, not the Iraqi people.

I do believe though that some people are simply so evil that it is the governments job to stop them. Such as Hitler, and personally I put Saddam in this chatagory as well. It is up to discussion when somebody crosses that line. But I do believe in higharchtical ethics, or the idea that some things are worse ethically than others. Such as; if I saw a gunman walk into Macdonolds and start wasting little kids I would stop him without any regret or remorse (even if it ment killing him), as I believe it would be the right thing to do. In real life, nothing is this clear, which is why we have these great ethical debates!

[Ciryaher]

When people go in the military (I'm speaking from a US point of view) they should expect that they may be in a position to be killed or that they will have to kill someone. I, myself, may go into the military as a Chaplain's Assistant. A religious occupation, but in the military. When you try to get this job (according to my mother, who was in the Navy for nearly 20 years) you have to sign a paper saying that you will die trying to protect the Chaplain. Now if that isn't notifying someone of what they're getting into, I don't know what is. My point being, if you go into the military, expect that on some occaision you may die or have to fight.

[Idril]

I used to be in the TA (Territorial Army - reservist in the UK) for 5 years and was part of a Medi. Corp. The understanding was - You did your job in the event you got called up (as did in the Gulf War - but our unit didn't actually go in the end) and simply you may die, but we will train you and hopefully with these skills, you try to stay alive, save others and carry out your orders. How many of us actually believed we could die though is another question.

[Lantalasse]

Originally posted by Eriol

Ultimately, there are only two ways to concern about other people, such as the victims of 9/11: whether you feel for them as fellow human beings, the only generalization that applies (an universal generalization...), or you divide them in Americans, British, French... and then you are making little dolls. There is no "American", no "British". I think following the first is the only way to go -- but then you are bound to feel the same for a dead Iraqi as for a dead American. (even though you admire the country and culture of America -- as I do -- much more than the country and culture of Iraq -- of which I unfortunately know much less about, especially regarding their culture).



first of all, congrats on two excellent posts Eriol, apart from agreeing with most of your points i also respect the way you think.
Secondly, i'd like to say some things about Iraq. i know certain people regard this country as backward etc etc, and it may well be at least on an economic level. BUT, we shouldn't forget that this is an old culture, with it's own long history. Baghdad was Babylon after all. and although today it is quite different than it was, and most people in Iraq don't know their history that well, they still know the basics and are very proud. what i want to say is that just because a country doesn't have the best infrastructure or hasn't got the most up-to-date equipment etc, it does not mean it's "un-cultured"(if there is such a word). making that assumption would mean you fall into the "civilised-uncivilised" trap that propaganda has cultivated for a long long time.

[7doubles]

more like savage, being underdevellopt is a lack of culture and a disrespect to the wellfair of its comunity. in order to survive an entaty must adapt and contribute to its growth to accomadate its splender. being one of the oldest citys should make it better not worse. if they havent learned from their mistakes by now, their never gonna. i dont know how they lasted this long

[EL GALLO]

I dont agree DR Ramson. Bush is a more despotic and cruel leader, he HAS weapons of mass-destruction, he wasnt really elected, he is also a fundamentalist, if someone deserves to be judged as criminal it should be him, however if that doesnt justifies to kill americans then why is it right to make war on Iraq.

[Gandalf White]

Originally posted by EL GALLO
I dont agree DR Ramson. Bush is a more despotic and cruel leader, he HAS weapons of mass-destruction, he wasnt really elected, he is also a fundamentalist, if someone deserves to be judged as criminal it should be him, however if that doesnt justifies to kill americans then why is it right to make war on Iraq. First off if you think Bush is worse than Saddam or Hitler, then you are out of your mind. Second, despotic means a tyrant, one with unlimited control. Of course, the American system of government operates with systems of checks and balances, making it totally impossible for any one of the offices to have total say in any matter. This eliminates the possibility that Bush is a despot. As to cruel; how so? He has done nothing cruel to any Americans. If you refer to the Iraqi people he was not cruel to them, he freed them from a true despot.

I also take it that you are biased against him because he is a Bible believing Christian. Too bad.

He has weapons of mass destruction. So what???? So do many other nations. China, Israel, etc. etc. etc. What exactly is your point?

Wasn't really elected? Ha! We've heard this before, it's old news. Whoever wins the most electoral votes wins. Bush won the most, so he won, it's that simple. To my knowledge there have been at least 4 other presidents elected without the popular vote, and there was no general outcry. :rolleyes:

Prosecuted as a criminal? How so?

I'm a little tired, and your last statement is nearly illegible, and together the two create great confusion. If you would be so kind as to explain.

[Anamatar IV]

He has weapons of mass destruction. So what???? So do many other nations. China, Israel, etc. etc. etc. What exactly is your point?

The reasons why Iraq was not allowed to have them whereas more civilized nations are allowed to hold are simple.

Western nations can handle them. Iraq can not. Atleast not under rule of Saddam Hussein. He is too dangerous for such powerful weapons. If he had a Nuke he wouldn't wait a minute to launch it. But look at the other nations with these weapons:

Israel: through countless attacks from neighbors and enemies they still have not dropped a WoMD

America: The last time we used a nuclear bomb was 56 years ago.

But then we have Saddam Hussein who has ordered over 50, 000 Kurds and Shiats to be gassed, executioned, and tortured for simply being Kurds or Shiats. Is there ANY doubt that if Saddam had a nuke he'd use it?

It is not a double standard fot the US to be able to Have WoMD and Iraq not to. Not one bit.


About Bush's winning...(I am a democrat...)

Bush won. Al Gore demanded recounts. If he hadn't Bush would have won.

War criminal? For waging war on a threat to mankind? Well for Pete's sake get George Washington up from the grave and try him as a war criminal! He was a general in a war! Lets execute the first George Bush for driving Iraqis out of Kuwait! And you know what else why don't we just hang Franklin D Roosevelt for waging war on the Nazis as they carelessly slaughtered millions of people....because they were Jewish. By your logic Hitler should be praised as a saint for stopping over-population in the world by killing millions of Jews while Roosevelt should be hated for stopping that!

Speaking of double standards....Hitler killed millions of Jews and we stopped that right then and there. Saddam killed tens of thousands of his own people. How big of a double standard would it be if we hadn't attacked Saddam?

[Dr. Ransom]

This is what I love about this forum; regardless of minor differences there are always great guys around to watch your back when you're gone for a bit :-)

I was going to reply to El Gallo but Gandawf White and Anatamar said the same thing so much more eloquently anyway :-)

Ransom

Ok Anatamar, you're on my "cool" list of Democrats.. lol

[ms Greenleaf]

Rasom I did a report on the USa before they were really the Usa way back when europe half-owned them guess what you had life way easy back then.

I personnally think that war was a waste of life... along with this one.

[Dr. Ransom]

Might you care to explain a little more about your report. Such as, which war are you actually talking about :D. There were several around the mid-to-late 18th Century in the Colonies. So were you refering to the French and Indian War? The American Revolution? (there were also some smaller lesser known ones, but they're were mostly localized.)

Also, just wondering if you spell my name Rasom on purpose?

lol, and BTW everyone, for those of you who don't know; Dr. Ransom is a character in a favorite Series of books by C.S Lewis. Tolkien himself loved the series. And in fact, Dr. Ransom is actually modeled after Tolkein himself.

[Gandalf White]

Originally posted by ms Greenleaf
Rasom I did a report on the USa before they were really the Usa way back when europe half-owned them guess what you had life way easy back then.

I personnally think that war was a waste of life... along with this one. I have a feeling that your report was not well-researched....:p :rolleyes:

[Dr. Ransom]

Catch it while you can... the one and only spam post right now by me! lol I'm asked a mod to delete a post I couldn't delete, so now I'm scared I'll lose my new Avatar if I go back to 99 :-)

lol Ok, while I'll say something profound anyway :-)

"To assert one's individuality is not necessarily to be free: it may indeed be but the outcome of absolute slavery." -George MacDonald

[faila]

Originally posted by ms Greenleaf
Rasom I did a report on the USa before they were really the Usa way back when europe half-owned them guess what you had life way easy back then.

I personnally think that war was a waste of life... along with this one. Ignorance doesnt always bother me, but some times it does.

It matters little about when they had it good and when that had it bad. They were being opressed. Being Taxed without representation, which was against brit law at the time. Thomas Paine in his book "Common Sense" gave the best logical reasons for this war. And one of them was that (this is not a direct quote, I cant find my book) it is better to have no government than to have a government that breaks its own laws. Your research was most likely flawed, and its what they wanted. To say that war was meaningless brings tears to my eyes. I love my nation and it hurts me to hear to say that why? because you are obviously missinformed, and it hurts me for any one to be missinformed.

[Elendil3119]

Originally posted by Dr. Ransom
lol, and BTW everyone, for those of you who don't know; Dr. Ransom is a character in a favorite Series of books by C.S Lewis. Tolkien himself loved the series. And in fact, Dr. Ransom is actually modeled after Tolkein himself.
Cool! Now that we know what your name means, we get to guess what your avatar is saying.:rolleyes: :p

[ms Greenleaf]

Okay the American Revoolution was idealistic but in many ways not nessisary. For instance America complained about how mush the europeans taxed them interestingly enough the Americans had an average tax of about 2 pence whereas the British had one of 22. would you like me to pm you that part of my report....double check it if you want although my report was on more than just that revolution

Besides Canada was let go withou8t a war.

Here I will send whoever wants it my report just all raise your hands

BTW I got this from books not the internet. I was comparing revolutions. Here Ransom you want it I asume and Faila your getting it whether you like it or no.

[Gandalf White]

Ah, what the heck, PM me the report as well.

Okay the American Revoolution was idealistic but in many ways not nessisary. For instance America complained about how mush the europeans taxed them interestingly enough the Americans had an average tax of about 2 pence whereas the British had one of 22. would you like me to pm you that part of my report....double check it if you want although my report was on more than just that revolution Yes, I realize that the Americans were not taxed heavily, comparatively speaking. None of the different taxes (stamp, tea, etc.) were heavy on anyone's pocket book. However, what we objected to was the "taxation without representation," how we had no say in the matter. Also, we were expected to pay heavily for the French and Indian war, but we thought our mother country should do it. I'll post more on this later, possibly, because right now I'm supposed to be sleeping.

[faila]

Originally posted by ms Greenleaf
Okay the American Revoolution was idealistic but in many ways not nessisary. For instance America complained about how mush the europeans taxed them interestingly enough the Americans had an average tax of about 2 pence whereas the British had one of 22. would you like me to pm you that part of my report....double check it if you want although my report was on more than just that revolution

Besides Canada was let go withou8t a war.

Here I will send whoever wants it my report just all raise your hands

BTW I got this from books not the internet. I was comparing revolutions. Here Ransom you want it I asume and Faila your getting it whether you like it or no. That matters little, they were being taxed without any representation, which was against british law. When a government starts ignoring its own laws it is better that it have no government at all. And what was that a tax on? You just said a tax, you didnt say on what. If you want us to read post part of it. It doesnt matter that they were being taxed less they shouldnt of been taxed at all without representation. Read the book "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine, if you can find it in your nation, because it tells why the revolutionary war was necesary. HOw much longer did they expect us to be taxed unfairly before we got mad? THe Revolutionary war started one of the greatest nations in the world. I am proud that those people stood up to the King. Read the Declaration of Independence, to see why we left. That gives good logical reasons. Brittain could of pulled out their troops as soon as we signed the declaration of independence, why didnt they do that? huh? Why didnt they just let us go? Note: I understand completely and totally why they didnt, Im just showing you that in a way it was just as much brittians fault that the revolutionary war happened than americans.

[Wolfshead]

Yes, this is nit-picking and rather destroys the flow of things - but I have to point out that Britain and British and so on, only have one 't' in them, not two. Sorry.

[ms Greenleaf]

Oh BTW pm me your thoughtrs on my report/