budullewraagh Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 ok so we create even more instibility and commit atrocities of our own. sounds like a big waste of effort to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted January 31, 2005 Author Share Posted January 31, 2005 What atrocities? The things that happened under Saddam don't happen anymore. It was well worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 people aren't being tortured. nah. there have been 0 civilian casualties because hey, our "smart" bombs are 100% accurate. our "smart" bullets stop before hitting children and turn into candy. our tanks don't release CO or CO2, they release O2 with just a little N2O to brighten the spirits! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimeTraveler Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 What atrocities?The things that happened under Saddam don't happen anymore. It was well worth it. Your kidding right? http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/iraq.deaths/ Public health experts have estimated that around 100' date='000 Iraqi civilians have died since the United States invaded Iraq in March last year. The experts from the United States and Iraq said most of those who died were women and children and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most of the violent deaths. While the major causes of death before the invasion were heart attack, stroke, and chronic illness, the risk of dying from violence after the invasion was 58 times higher than in the period before the war.[/quote'] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted January 31, 2005 Author Share Posted January 31, 2005 people aren't being tortured. nah. there have been 0 civilian casualties because hey, our "smart" bombs are 100% accurate. our "smart" bullets stop before hitting children and turn into candy. our tanks don't release CO or CO2, they release O2 with just a little N2O to brighten the spirits! Why can't you talk directly? Obviously there aren't going to be 0 casualties (like your version of Saddams rule) and obviously things won't go 100% perfect. According to you rule under Saddam was pretty much perfect, well good for you. The rest of us don't like rape, murder, and other atrocites under the absolute rule of a madman. TimeTraveler: I wouldn't call them atrocities. There was no intent to hurt these people, bad things have happened, but not atrocities, we are trying to help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Well have you signed over your home to the sioux nation yet? I mean since you think that the Indians get screwed' date=' wouldn't that be the honest thing to do? [/quote'] No, that would be the stupid thing to do, seeing as for the past couple of centuries ceding territory would have made no difference whatsoever. The damage was done a long time ago. Plus, of course, it's fairly difficult to un-slaughter people; especially after a few hundred years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted January 31, 2005 Author Share Posted January 31, 2005 Plus he lives in England! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 It's all about their location in the world, it's just that our government designs its plans to put all the media attention on the locations that they want to hit for the benefits of its overall goals. I think that is to ascribe more strategic thinking to our governments than they deserve. For instance Sudan has suffered from a terrible civil war for more than 20 years, the humanitarian crisis has been horrible. But, it is only when the media started showing pictures from Darfur last year that the international 'community' suddenly leapt into action with a major aid program. There are no goals or interests for western governments here, simply a case of follow the cameras which randomnly and capriously choose Darfur as their humanitarian crisis of the week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Why can't you talk directly? Obviously there aren't going to be 0 casualties (like your version of Saddams rule) and obviously things won't go 100% perfect. According to you rule under Saddam was pretty much perfect, well good for you. The rest of us don't like rape, murder, and other atrocites under the absolute rule of a madman. TimeTraveler: I wouldn't call them atrocities. There was no intent to hurt these people, bad things have happened, but not atrocities, we are trying to help. the road to hell is paved with good intentions. i understand that hussein did kill some kurds. that number has been estimated at 5000, liberally more likely than not, considering the agenda that is being pushed. it is not quite known if all of these people were defenseless, "good" people. perhaps they were not all good and hussein wanted to kill the bad ones (with good intentions) but failed to do so without killing some of the good people. i dont think he was a particularly nice guy, but i also think his actions were no worse than our own. thing is, people dont like losing their houses, livelihood, family, economy, etc. the iraqi economy blows now and people dont like it. quite a number of people are without employment. they arent happy. quite a bunch of civilians have been killed, many estimates predicting over 100,000. that's a bunch more than 5000 kurds. thats 20 times hussein. he tortured some people, we tortured some people. all in all, people lose. he oppressed the kurds, we didn't give 150,000 of them ballots. whoops, the kurds lose...again. you can say that our efforts are noble. you cannot say that our efforts are worth the casualties (killed and maimed) and the absurd amount of money that is being paid (from our pockets to corporations and directly into bush's pocket due to insider trading and kickbacks) for work that is many times less in value than that which is being paid for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 you cannot say that our efforts are worth the casualties (killed and maimed) and the absurd amount of money that is being paid (from our pockets to corporations and directly into bush's pocket due to insider trading and kickbacks) for work that is many times less in value than that which is being paid for. This use of arithmetic to calculate morality seems fundamentaly flawed. You can't define the badness of Saddam or the coaliton by casaulty figures. The people who cause the highest causalties are the bad guys? It doesn't make sense. You start calculating how many lives overthrowing a ditactorship is worth, 10 million lives to get rid of Hitler, but not 11 million. 1 million to get rid of Pol Pot but not 1.5 million. The argument about overthrowing Sadaam and installing democracy has got to be about more than comparing causalty figures, that's just infantile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tetrahedrite Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Why is it that every time I here someone talk about "installing democracy" now it makes me feel sick in the stomach. Must be a sign of the times Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Why is it that every time here someone talk about "installing democracy" now it makes me feel sick in the stomach.Must be a sign of the times Maybe because you're a sensitive guy who doen't feel comfortable imposing his own moral and political values upon others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 This use of arithmetic to calculate morality seems fundamentaly flawed. You can't define the badness of Saddam or the coaliton by casaulty figures. The people who cause the highest causalties are the bad guys? It doesn't make sense. You start calculating how many lives overthrowing a ditactorship is worth, 10 million lives to get rid of Hitler, but not 11 million. 1 million to get rid of Pol Pot but not 1.5 million. i was only using comparative analysis. i never actually stated an opinion. rather, i presented numerical information comparing hussein's actions with coalition actions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 i was only using comparative analysis. i never actually stated an opinion. rather, i presented numerical information comparing hussein's actions with coalition actions You explicitly stated that 'you cannot say that our efforts are worth the casualties (killed and maimed)' after making your comparative analysis. Stating that you 'never stated an opinion' seems disingenous. By the way, i can't find any reference to 150,000 missing ballot papers for the Kurds on the news sites i check. Where did you get that information? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted January 31, 2005 Author Share Posted January 31, 2005 Maybe Saddam killed 5000 Kurds in that one event, but there are many other events over his years of rule, and any more were killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Maybe Saddam killed 5000 Kurds in that one event, but there are many other events over his years of rule, and any more were killed. Reducing the moral argument to arthimetic over casuality figures is foolish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted January 31, 2005 Author Share Posted January 31, 2005 Of course. I am merely working with Budel's logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Of course. I am merely working with Budel's logic. Understood, but if you do that then you are conceding the ground the debate will be conducted upon right from the very start. This automatically places you at a disadvantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tetrahedrite Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Maybe because you're a sensitive guy who doen't feel comfortable imposing his own moral and political values upon others? Yeah...that must be it!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Yeah...that must be it!! I guessed as much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted January 31, 2005 Author Share Posted January 31, 2005 Understood, but if you do that then you are conceding the ground the debate will be conducted upon right from the very start. This automatically places you at a disadvantage. Okay, the atrocities commited by Saddam can't be measured in lives lost, because millions were oppressed and withour freedom. (good enough?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Okay, the atrocities commited by Saddam can't be measured in lives lost, because millions were oppressed and withour freedom. (good enough?) Excellent, welcome to the dark side of devious debating techniques. Never accept the other guys assumptions or allow him to set the terms of the debate. I love spreading discord and chaos! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimeTraveler Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Plus he lives in England! If you are referring to me, I live in the U.S., born and raised. In the state directly north of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted January 31, 2005 Author Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally Posted by syntax252Well have you signed over your home to the sioux nation yet? I mean since you think that the Indians get screwed, wouldn't that be the honest thing to do? He asked sayo and he doesn't live in the US, sry for the confusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimeTraveler Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 I think that is to ascribe more strategic thinking to our governments than they deserve. For instance Sudan has suffered from a terrible civil war for more than 20 years' date=' the humanitarian crisis has been horrible. But, it is only when the media started showing pictures from Darfur last year that the international 'community' suddenly leapt into action with a major aid program. There are no goals or interests for western governments here, simply a case of follow the cameras which randomnly and capriously choose Darfur as their humanitarian crisis of the week.[/quote'] I disagree, here is why: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=8737 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now