Your logic is flawed. The disciples were not seeing the bigger picture. They would have used force to prevent the crucifixion of Christ simply to prevent their friend/mentor/rabbi from being harmed. Christ saw the bigger picture. He knew that He had to go through the crucifixion in order for His plan of salvation to be completed. Peter stuck his foot in his mouth when he said that he would never allow Jesus to be killed. Jesus then equated him with Satan, because He knew that His death was an integral part of the plan of salvation. The sacrifice had to be made. If the time had not been right, Jesus never would have been taken in the garden.
I think you are taking that passage out of context. The REASON he said they should not attack his captors is because it was the will of God that He be put to death and this was the proper time for this to be done, NOT because it is wrong to protect their friend and master w/ lethal force if necessary.
More people died from the fall out effects of DU and more than a decade of sanctions than ever did die by the regime's hands, and both those are directly connected back to the U.S. But again, this is not a matter of pointing fingers, my point is that there is always an alternative solution which does not involve killing. Did the U.S. campaign in Afghanistan "kill" Osama bin Laden? Did the U.S. campaign in Iraq only kill those who were killing innocent / civilian Iraqis? Did Ghandi expel the brutality of British rule by trying to kill those in power that were doing the most harm? Did Martin Luther King Jr. try to lynch the KKK and those who struck out at African Americans? I am not saying that there is a one single thing that could have been done or can be done to make sure people don't suffer under oppressive regimes, history and life more often than not do not work in such a simplistic way, but through a chain of events. Who armed the Iraqi regime? Who continues to arm the world? Who spends the most on developing weapons of mass destruction? Who has used the most destructive weapons of mass destruction before? Who refuses to disarm more than any other country in the world? It is a very hypocritical stance to say that we must disarm Iraq when the U.S. was the very country, amongst others (and I do not care for comparisons to who dealt more, yes it is a problem that each country must address), which chose to arm him, but it is not so much about arming him, I do not mean to say, well the U.S. should have known better than to arm HIM, but rather the U.S. should have known better than to continue to perpetuate violence by creating more violence around the world . . . and if we didn't know better before, then certainly we can learn to do better. There are many ways that Hitler, Saddam, or any other "brutal" dictator you may choose to illustrate, could have been stopped before atrocities were committed. The world is not perfect, it is not ideal, and perhaps I am too much of an optimist, but I think it's possible that we can live without perpetuating destruction and violence, but if we are going to try and end violence and brutality then we have to take steps to do this, and they must be peaceful, they cannot be infected with self interest, or looking for self profit, or honour, etc. I've gone on too much . . . let others speak, I want to hear more from others.
And Conjour if you are not going to answer the question then please do not post again, more often than not you contribute nothing to the conversation.
I don't think lack of belief in God negates the capacity for morality. Objectively, you have no right to the fate of any other person moraly unless they first move to inflict harm upon you or take what is yours, in which case they have forfeited their rights and are subject to punishment accordingly. I would not feel the need to justify my action to God or anyone else if my life was threatened, because I have the right to my own life if nothing else.
jlee
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2001
- 48,518
- 223
- 106
Well..the Jews in WWII didn't end up off too well...seems as though the war helped them out a bit.
You're using a bit of invalid logic here:
Would you rather have had thousands more die in a mainland invasion of Japan? Did we randomly decide "Hey..cool..we have WMD! Let's blow some people up." No...we were in a rather large global conflict at the time.
Whoa...eh...try an occasional period.
Is it very hypocritical for a parent to give their child a car, and then take it away after they start driving drunk?
Hindsight is 20/20..do you mean that since we didn't eliminate Saddam before that we should've left him alone now? How could you use a non-violent method to stop Hitler in WWII?
good post mechBgon.. i agree..Originally posted by: mechBgon
I believe we're given a lifetime in which to make up our mind whether to renew our relationship with God or remain spiritually separated. To end a life is to take away that person's chance to come to life in the way that will last.
So it's a momentous thing to deliberately end someone's life, evil or not. It takes away their ability to repent (duh). I'm sure I'll be ridiculed for this, but I would prefer that even the most spiritually-hopeless people, including Saddam and his goons, could have their full lifetimes to change their destiny, no matter what they've done (edit: provided this doesn't mean they are able to keep killing/maiming/torturing others all the while, that is). (*puts on flame-proof suit*) In war, of course, it's not practicible to make this happen. So is war necessarily wrong, then?
The doctrine of a "Just War" is that when all other means have failed, sometimes war is justified. Did all peaceful means fail in Iraq's case, and did we have enough justification to do what we did ("we" being largely the United States)? That is open for endless debate.
How about you? Do you see Saddam and his henchmen in the role of the hypothetical would-be murderer? The accounts of what they did to Iraqis is chilling to read about (think about your private parts, and an electric carving knife... ah so :Q).
Not a matter of pointing fingers? Then why did you just do that exact thing? Get your jabs in and then run and hide from others' opinions that more closely match the truth. BTW, the sanctions were imposed by the UN, not the U.S.
Typical bleeding-heart liberal BS. Let's blame the U.S. for Saddam's faults.
That's because you approach troll status and have nothing of substance to offer.
But, I will offer up a response to your original questions:
1) I could not say anything to God as there is no God. There is no proof of God, only conjecture and belief, neither of which are proof, imo.
2) As has been posted here, if my life, or the lives of my family/friends were in danger by someone, say, breaking into my house and pulling a weapon on me, then, yeah, they will die at my hands if at all possible and I would not have one single ounce of remorse. As someone else posted, you threaten my life and you've lost your right to live.
About the car and child example . . . perhaps hypocrisy isn't the correct term, but making a mistake doesn't mean that the child is incapable of learning . . . if you burn your hand by touching a hot pan, does that mean you'll never use fire again?
Indeed hindsight is 20/20, it's easier to look back and say well we should have done this or that, or should not have allowed this or that to happen, but does that mean we are incapable of doing that in the current moment as well? Does that mean we cannot look into the future at the possible consequences of our actions? When you give a child car keys, don't you think it's better not to hand them a beer as well? Do you think the only way to have stopped WWII was by dropping an atom bomb . . . on civilians? Where to drop the bomb was surely a matter of consideration, with many options available . . . why not first just use the bomb off the coast, show that the U.S. has this power and then state they are willing to use it (not that that would have been "right" either). It's not an easy world we live in, there are difficult decisions to be made, but you and others keep returning to the awful things that others have done to justify other awful actions . . . do you seriously think that there is no other way to live? It is not like these people instantaneously came into power and started killing people, no it was a series of actions, some recognizable, some not . . . the matter of atrocities committed by the Iraqi regime is a convenient excuse for this war, but certainly not the primary concern of this government otherwise something would have been done much earlier (and no i do not mean war) . . . all people deserve to live free of oppression, but war is not the answer, war is not a liberating force, war is destruction and death, there is another way, and we must work together to find it, we must put our resources into finding an end to war not into funding war, not into buying more missiles and bombs.
I do understand your thinking, but, the trouble is, it's just too utopian for this planet right now. WWII could only have ended by force. Going out on a limb here....If taking out Hitler with a sniper would have meant an earlier end, I don't know. I have many doubts that the rest of the German military would have just given up without their leader (unlike the Iraqi automaton military). Now on to a much simpler analogy...Go back to grade school days. If a bully was beating you up, would you have stood there and taken the punishment and tried to talk him out of pushing your face into the asphalt? No, you'd have fought back and maybe beaten him up and then had the upper hand and been left alone.
It's easy to sit back and postulate that a peaceful/non-violent method exists as the solution to any conflict. It's just not pragmatic to implement only peaceful/non-violent solutions. As long as there are ego-maniacal dictators ruling countries on this planet, there will always be violence on a grander scale than just simple criminal offenses (murder, rape, robbery, etc.)
Originally posted by: conjur
Not a matter of pointing fingers? Then why did you just do that exact thing? Get your jabs in and then run and hide from others' opinions that more closely match the truth. BTW, the sanctions were imposed by the UN, not the U.S.
Typical bleeding-heart liberal BS. Let's blame the U.S. for Saddam's faults.
My point is that war hawks like yourself, with Lockean logic of 'I have the right to kill anything that threatens me, because in threatening me they have forfeited their own right to life', argue that the Iraqi regime has committed atrocities, but refuse to recognize the role of the US . . . the US has also committed atrocities, people have died at the hands of both governments, and it's unfortunate in both cases, and I am not saying that the blame lies completely on one or the other, but it is folly to say that one man is responsible for all the suffering that these people have gone through.
I am not running off anywhere to hide, I am not dealing jabs, I am not in a fight with you, calm down . . . if you disagree with something I say fine disagree, you do not need to see it as an attack. If you want to state a point, then state your point, your opinion your ideas, but do not continue with making conjecture of what you think others are thinking or what others mean, I am not blaming the US for Saddam's faults, or saying that he is without faults, but I am saying that the US has faults which should be recognized and addressed.
You say that the UN imposed the sanctions and not the US . . . but who was the biggest proponent of sanctions within the UN? Do you think that had the UN refused to impose sanctions the US would not have imposed their own sanctions? The US twists a lot of arms to get its way, because the US is a superpower with respect to weapons and trade and economics, and this power more often than not used to get what the administration wants. Go back and look at news article archives concerning this war and the first Gulf War and look for articles about trade deals and threats of backing out of deals, etc between the US and other countries which were forced to go along with the US, especially within the UN, the big countries which hold veto power. You certainly aren't giving enough credit to the US's power within the UN, and the US's determination to get what it wants . . . take this war for example, when the UN wouldn't give the US what it wants, the US goes it alone (yes I know the UK came along, and there is a "coalition of the willing", but neither of those would have done a thing without the US).
Back to your Lockean logic . . . there is another way, where you do not have to succumb to the rage of revenge or hate to answer a threat. I hope that you can find this way, I hope that you don't continue to indiscriminantly label what I say as liberal BS. Hate will only breed more hate. I know a black man who lost his wife and children in South Africa during the apartheid. . . after Mandela came into power a program of dialogue was begun for the people, and it was a little slow in bearing fruit, but this man met the white man who had taken the life of his wife and children through such a program, and now this man is godfather to the white man's son. You look into the world and see hate without possibility of love or reform, but that is likely because you do not offer any love or reform.
Originally posted by: iamWolverine
Originally posted by: conjur
Not a matter of pointing fingers? Then why did you just do that exact thing? Get your jabs in and then run and hide from others' opinions that more closely match the truth. BTW, the sanctions were imposed by the UN, not the U.S.
Typical bleeding-heart liberal BS. Let's blame the U.S. for Saddam's faults.
My point is that war hawks like yourself, with Lockean logic of 'I have the right to kill anything that threatens me, because in threatening me they have forfeited their own right to life', argue that the Iraqi regime has committed atrocities, but refuse to recognize the role of the US . . . the US has also committed atrocities, people have died at the hands of both governments, and it's unfortunate in both cases, and I am not saying that the blame lies completely on one or the other, but it is folly to say that one man is responsible for all the suffering that these people have gone through.
'war hawks like [myself]'? Why do you say that? I would rather that Saddam had abided by the cease fire agreement and a peaceful settlement were reached. I would rather Saddam had surrendered before the war in Iraq began. But, that didn't happen. Saddam had the choice. He chose poorly. But, he knew Bush would take the blame for any Iraqi life taken as Saddam didn't care about his own people. Saddam had his troops killing innocents if they didn't join the fight. What kind of animal is that???
You're not comparing apples to apples there. My statement that if someone breaks into my house and threatens my life, I will kill them if I am able. That has nothing to do with the situation in Iraq. Saddam has proven, on more than one occasion, to be an aggressor, an invader, and cares not one iota for anyone's life other than his own worthless pile of #$%. Saddam chose to break the cease-fire agreement of 1991 and he has now paid the consequences. And, despite the sanctions, it was still possible for the people of Iraq to receive food and medecine through the Oil-for-Food program. However, Saddam chose to divert the money, food, medecine, etc. to his military. Again, because Saddam only cares about protecting his own hide. I place the blame for the suffering of the Iraqi people SOLELY on Saddam. You would seem to blame Bush, Sr. and Jr. and Clinton for the Iraqi's plight. And, that I just cannot fathom how anyone could come to that opinion.
Saddam threatens an entire region. A region that, yes, produces most of the world's oil. Note I said world's oil. Should the Middle East fall to a dictator such as Saddam, it would have worldwide implications, not just for the U.S. UN Resolution 687 (the cease fire) stated Saddam must fully and unconditionally disarm to maintain peace and security in the region. He failed and paid.
You plainly pointed the finger of blame for the Iraqis' plight with the U.S. and fail to see the larger picture that Saddam is the one at fault. Another simplistic analogy, if you will...You're in boot camp and someone in your barracks broke a curfew rule but would not confess. The drill sergeant then places the entire barracks under restrictions (say, no weekend passes and everyone must perform K.P. and do 500 situps/day and receive only bread and water for a week). Everyone suffers but who is at fault? The drill sergeant or the culprit? In your mind, the drill sergeant is at blame.
See my earlier comments. And, I'll add this. What about France? They were brought kicking and screaming into agreement back in 1991. France has very large oil contracts with Iraq. And, news is now coming out about apparent illegal arms sales from France to Iraq during the period of sanctions (and Germany and Russia do not appear to be without blame, either). What is the best course of action? Support a known aggressor who has killed, perhaps, millions or support a coalition to force him to disarm?
Question, then. Should someone come into your home and beat you nearly unconscious and then commence to raping your wife with sights set next on your children. You come to enough and find a weapon. What do you do? Talk him into a state of rationality or injure or kill him to protect your family?
There is much precedent that killing the intruder is a legal action for self-defense. I do not understand why you have a problem with this. Now, if someone comes into my house, points a gun at my head and says, "Give your money" then I hand over my money and hope he doesn't shoot. At that point, I wouldn't feel my life was necessarily at the utmost danger as he just wants money and to leave. But, if someone intends to inflict physical harm to my person or my family, then, yeah, I will act accordingly. Perhaps you are not a parent and do not understand the love of wanting to protect one's children.
Thank you, you are starting to discuss, rather than just spit out little remarks.
Once in adulthood we move beyond grade school mentality don't we? Or should we constantly be regressing back to that? Today I am not the same person as I was in grade school, so I could answer this in two ways, one from the perspective of where I am today, and two of where I think I was then (with respect to state of mind and understanding). Then and now I would have defended myself yes, and more now than then I think I would have tried to speak to the person before fists started flying. Then I would have probably ended the fight and attempt to ignore the person, now I think if I did have to fight, I would not just end it with a fight, simply having the "upper hand" does not guarantee that I will be left alone . . . resolving the matter of the fight however would. Now we just enter into further hypotheticals concerning what the matter of the fight was, and what possiblity there could be for resolution. Being an optimist, a person partial to utopian conceptions, I would think that there is a possiblity for resolution . . . and examples such as the man I spoke of in my previous post, who has actually built a loving relationship with the very man who killed his wife and children, gives me further hope in these possibilities. There are better ways to resolving issues than violence and answering violence with further violence . . . do you disagree with this? Are you so sure that the only way to end violence is through the use of violence and death?
In stopping ego maniacal dictators do there have to be innocent people caught in the middle who suffer from the aggression of those dictators and the people's would be saviors? Pragmatism gives us lots of options, we are very creative ingenious creatures, capable of wonderful and magnificent things, are we truly incapable of finding another way?
I typically respond in kind.
I don't think that the only way to end violence is only through returned violence. There are many situations in which a peaceful agreement can eventually be reached, just look at my divorce (har har har). Look at Syria, Iran, and North Korea now backpedaling on their rhetoric and now seem to be willing to discuss peaceful arrangements. I would much rather have it that way. Leaders finally acting like adults with responsibilities of providing the safety and welfare of their populace. The trouble is, not everyone thinks along those lines (Saddam Hussein is one of those exceptions). There was just no peaceful dealing with Saddam. He saw that he could push and push until lines were too far crossed and there was no turning back. Saddam only agreed to allow inspectors to re-enter Iraq once U.S. troops were standing at his border. The resistance of France, Germany, and Russia only bolstered Saddam's position that he could stall any type of forced disarmament and continue his merry ways of plunder, rape, and murder. Do you not think there are exceptions to every rule and that, in some circumstances, violence is the ONLY answer? Do you think Germany and Japan could have been stopped with some kind words in WWII? Do you think Napoleon could have been stopped with words? Stalin? The various Caesars? Ghengis Khan? There are exceptions when madmen take the reigns.
That Saddam Hussein was one of those exceptions is something I take issue with, not because I am in any way partial to the man, I've never known him, and nor do I wholeheartedly believe what is fed to the public through the media . . . and I hope that I don't sound like a sympathizer of his, because that most certainly is not my intention. Concerning the first Gulf War . . . have you ever heard of April Glaspie? The US and Iraq were still on decent terms after the end of the Iran war, Iraq took issue with several things which were happening or they claimed were happening. One claim was that Kuwait had been stealing oil, and the second claim was that world oil prices were being driven down by two or three (I believe it was 3) countries, one of which was Kuwait. Both of these things were hurting the Iraqi economy, which was already suffering from debts owed to several countries, etc. Otherwise, Iraq was doing fairly well, and in many respects coming out of third world status. The reason I brought up Glaspie is that it has been argued that the US knew about Iraq's intentions to invade Kuwait beforehand, and was in effect asked for permission, and the response from the US, coming from a talk with Glaspie (and I believe also a letter from Bush Sr.) basically gave an ok . . . or at least gave the impression that there would be no problem. Iraq had tried to negotiate with Kuwait and also the other countries which were driving oil prices down, and unfortunately Iraq chose to invade. Yes this was a mistake, but Iraq did not have any intentions of world domination as some media outlets professed at the time. The response to these actions by the US was overwhelming and extreme, with sudden outbursts of propoganda that Iraqi soldiers were destroying incubators, and other malicous lies to help rally support for war. From then on I am sure you are some what familiar with the progression of history, with the US pushing the UN into joining forces for a war and imposing sanctions. You claim that the Iraqi regime used money from the oil for food program for personal use rather than for its people, and this is not quite true. If you were to say that the Iraqi regime sold oil outside of the oil for food program and made money off of that I would believe, but that they used money from the oil for food program for other uses, I cannot really believe, since all the funds of the oil for food program were held in the UN bank in New York city, and all orders for foods and supplies were processed by requests from Iraq going through the UN. Many within the UN program have attested to the backlog of orders which had not gone through and also the ill timing of orders going through for necessary supplies that would help reform the fractured infrastructure of the country, everything from ambulances to supplies for water treatment facilities, etc etc. A new term was made up to make orders for necessary items harder "Dual-use". Were all of Saddam's intentions good and honest, probably not, but did sanctions hurt him? No, they weakened the people, a people which were now being oppressed by the whole world rather than one man. Should this have been brought to an end? Yes. Was war the solution? No. Inspectors were not kicked out in 1998, they were told to leave by the US who started to bomb Iraq. Why was the work of the inspectors put to a halt? Because it was discovered that CIA members were part of the inspections team and using that information to gain intelligence for further bombing campaigns rather than doing their assigned job of being weapons inspectors. To say that weapons inspections didn't work is not true. But this is past now, and there is nothing that we can do to change the past, but there is yet the future, and we must examine our actions carefully. Is trying to put a man like Chalabi in power in Iraq the "right" thing to do? Is that what a democractic Iraq wants? Does hiring foreign companies (most from the US, and most with connections to those in the administration) to rebuild Iraq help the Iraqi people? Why not pay the Iraqi people to rebuild their country, surely there are construction companies, etc, or people that would be willing to start compaines? Why deal this to people outside of the country? If it is given to people directly in the country wouldn't that help them out more in rebuilding both the country and the economy at the same time? It is more difficult to say something about the past, and those deemed "evil" dictators or conquerors of the past, but we are coming into a new time where we have a power to find new alternatives, and those alternatives should not be enforced with an armament of dirty weapons. Trying to scare the rest of the world into submission does not guarantee peace, nor does it guarantee submission, nor does it guarantee fear, we must be carefuly what we choose to do.
Well...now you've just fallen back to some of the same old tired arguments (inspectors not kicked out in 1998 - there has been much information provided that the inspections then were fruitless and a sham due to Saddam's obstinance. Why do you think Clinton launched missile attacks??? Weapons inspections were not working. Period.) about Iraq over the last few years. And to bring up April Glaspie...well...if you think a measly Ambassador had the power to 'approve' of an invasion by Iraq of Kuwait, well, you should start waking up.
But...this is now way off-topic and I have to move this weekend. Enjoy!
That means that if a murderer was condemned to death by lethal injection, the executioner would not have to answer for that as it would not be a sin.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter