1 US Soldier Killed: ~271 Iraqis Killed, 383 Wounded in Attakcs in Baghdad, Karbala
- Thread starter tnitsuj
- Start date
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Pretty much ties into the Al-Qaeda tactics, and the letter saying "let's start a civil war with the Shiites".
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,266
- 126
Corn
Diamond Member
- Nov 12, 1999
- 6,389
- 29
- 91
Maybe we should, but that doesn't necessarily mean we have the available resources to rescue every victim on the face of this earth. I see no problem with being altruistic when it serves our interests and purposes.
Winston Smith, do you give to every worthy charity? Of course not, even though there are several "worthy" charities, your primary responsibility is still to your family. It is not hypocritical to give to one, or five, but not to every charity that has a need. Your resources are not infinite (an assumption), and I'm sure that you, like me, allot your time and/or money to charities that may affect you personally (such as your church, a foundation, or for research to cure a disease that may have taken a family member or friend, etc..).
Your example is not "reverse logic", it is logical fallacy.
Well, I have to wonder if Iraq is better off now. I never heard of terrorists bombing Iraqis while Saddam was in power. Would Saddam have killed more Iraqis in the last year and a half than the US war + all the bombings have done? 143 dead today alone. I doubt it. Meanwhile we still have a death penalty in the US so we have no room to point fingers at even Hitler for executing people. At least if we had no death penalty here we could say Saddamn was bad for putting people to death.
Corn
Diamond Member
- Nov 12, 1999
- 6,389
- 29
- 91
You're absolutely right MoronBunny, gassing entire villages full of women and children is no worse than executing a convicted murderer.
I remain unsuprised at the primitive intellect that is unable to discern the difference between those guilty of the crimes of murder and the innocent victims of those same people. What suprises me is that you have ability to type.
I remain unsuprised at the primitive intellect that is unable to discern the difference between those guilty of the crimes of murder and the innocent victims of those same people. What suprises me is that you have ability to type.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,266
- 126
This is not charity. This is the direct result of our actions. WWII and this war have one thing in common, and that is people were shooting each other. The needs and wants of the parties involved were completely different. Iraq was NOT about our survival, and WWII was NOT about the Holocost.
What we have done is provide a fertile ground for terrorists that did not exist in Iraq, and now everyone there has to live with it. You can argue that they are better off with terrorists than Saddam. Fine do that, but WE made that decision to invade. We hang back, and they live and die based on what we tell them is good for them.
I have never provided "charity" at the point of a gun.
I would do this though if I could. I would create a flat tax of 2 percent on every American of voting age for a generation and ship the proceeds to Iraq. We do whatever we please, call it what ever we like. I would do that in every war where there was no demonstrated AND PROVEN need in US interest.
If we are going to play, I would make us pay.
Actually, we did let the Holocaust happen, and had an inkling of what was going on the whole time, but refused to step in.
We only entered WWII when Pearl Harbor was bombed. If we really wanted to be altruistic, we could have done so much earlier in the game.
If killing someone is wrong as we believe it is then it is always wrong.
If killing someone is wrong only sometimes then it is a matter opinion whther killing someone is wrong. I may feel that you deserve to be killed for calling me a moron. The government has set the example that when we feel someone should be killed it is ok . Saddam might have felt that those Kurds deserved to be killed for threatening his government. Our government felt that those Iraqis deserved to be killed for following Saddam. You cannot support the death penalty on one hand and contend on the other convincingly to me that there is anything wrong with me killing someone because I feel like it.
Now which is it is killing someone OK or is it wrong?
Why is it that people always assume that the US entered WWII to stop the Holocaust or save what some so delightfully call the "Euroweenies"? Like Danceman said, the US didn't really do much until Pearl Harbor was bombed. It was all about bitch slapping japan (and boy did they get a major bitch slapping) and their nazi allies. It wasn't a freaking charity mission by the US to save the poor euroweenies, as some people like to think.
Depends on your system of ethics.
Some people believe killing is always wrong, other believe there are exceptions to the rule.
Your choice of ethics determines how you view it, it's like coke vs pepsi (the choice of ethical system, not whether killing is right or wrong). And who are you to judge the ethics of others?
Corn
Diamond Member
- Nov 12, 1999
- 6,389
- 29
- 91
No, it is not. Your "reverse logic" implied that if we supposedly give an altruistic reason for an action, that we must act according to every need of a similar vein. I simply used "charity" as an example to show the fallacy in that "reverse logic".
Neither was the european theater of WW2. Our interests as a nation do not hinge solely on our "survival" or whether or not we are "attacked". You are dangerously approaching another logical fallacy, for we certainly do have in interest in a democratic Iraq: A potential ally, trading partner, and an example of our resolve. Whether or not you agree with the importance of those interests in immaterial, others in power may feel differently than you about their importance. You know what they say about opinions........
Unmitigated bullshit. Saddam terrorized his population into compliance. The Kurds were "terrorists", as were the Shiites who rebelled (and we let hang out to dry) shortly after Gulf War 1. The only difference between now and then are the targets of terrorism.
Don't worry we are, and we will.
I think you guys are incorrect in using the word killing here. I think a more appropriate word is murder. Killing and murder are not entirely the same thing. Take for example the ten commandments where it says thou shall not murder. But killing to defend yourself or your country is okay according to Jews and the Church.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 17K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
Facebook
Twitter