What's better - 100,000 in Iraq or 6,000 on 9/11

Originally posted by STANG
Numbers do make a difference in the case of a serial killer.

The number of people it affects does but I feel that murder is probably the worst thing you can do. If it is the worst thing then it can't get any, err umm worse. Two wrongs don't make a wronger if you get what I mean.

I agree it easy to get into debates about if you can save three people by killing two then is it right. For me, the answer is no, it is not right though I don't know why.

Originally posted by Wheely
The number of people it affects does but I feel that murder is probably the worst thing you can do. If it is the worst thing then it can't get any, err umm worse. Two wrongs don't make a wronger if you get what I mean.

I agree it easy to get into debates about if you can save three people by killing two then is it right. For me, the answer is no, it is not right though I don't know why.

One million deaths are clearly 'worse', 'wronger', whatever you want to call it, than one death.

However, in this case perhaps one should look at the number of deaths the alternatives would have caused:

Not having loaded airliners slamming into various buildings/the ground...

Not setting out to exterminate every living Jewish person in Europe...

Not having Saddam Hussein removed from power and his government apparatus dismantled...

Then do your maths.

Originally posted by ivangrice
One million deaths are clearly 'worse', 'wronger', whatever you want to call it, than one death.

However, in this case perhaps one should look at the number of deaths the alternatives would have caused:

Not having loaded airliners slamming into various buildings/the ground...

Not setting out to exterminate every living Jewish person in Europe. ...[text shortened]... dam Hussein removed from power and his government apparatus dismantled...

Then do your maths.

History is not rewritable.

You can't know what would happen with the world if the 9/11 attacks had been stopped, so all this discussion can lead to nowhere. Simply because you can always go back one more step, until the beginning of history.

All falls like a domino from there on. And if one piece had not fallen, the next ones wouldn't have fallen either.

Originally posted by ivangrice
One million deaths are clearly 'worse', 'wronger', whatever you want to call it, than one death.

However, in this case perhaps one should look at the number of deaths the alternatives would have caused:

Not having loaded airliners slamming into various buildings/the ground...

Not setting out to exterminate every living Jewish person in Europe. ...[text shortened]... dam Hussein removed from power and his government apparatus dismantled...

Then do your maths.

As an experienced time traveller I can inform you that the numbers would be the same in your "alternate" reality.

Saddam removed or saddam not removed, makes no difference (in numbers). The mere fact of his existance results in x number of deaths...

Guilt, responsibility, ownership...these are all more relevant subjects to the topic than the numbers. These topics will help you grow, miring yourself in discussing who did it "worst" will keep you in adolescence forever.

MÅ¥HÅRM

Originally posted by Mayharm
As an experienced time traveller I can inform you that the numbers would be the same in your "alternate" reality.

Saddam removed or saddam not removed, makes no difference (in numbers). The mere fact of his existance results in x number of deaths...

Guilt, responsibility, ownership...these are all more relevant subjects to the topic than the numbers. ...[text shortened]... ing yourself in discussing who did it "worst" will keep you in adolescence forever.

MÅ¥HÅRM

Decisions are taken in the real world, and have real consequences. If I can take a decision today that costs ten lives, and by doing so save 100 lives, then my decision needs to be judged on that basis.

Guilt, responsibility, ownership - in the real world, they're nice to haves. By all means discuss them, by all means grow. But please have someone making decisions that are 'mired' in the real world.

Originally posted by Palynka
History is not rewritable.

You can't know what would happen with the world if the 9/11 attacks had been stopped, so all this discussion can lead to nowhere. Simply because you can always go back one more step, until the beginning of history.

All falls like a domino from there on. And if one piece had not fallen, the next ones wouldn't have fallen either.

So how do you decide on a course of action, then?

Originally posted by ivangrice
So how do you decide on a course of action, then?

Fake powerpoint presentations? 🙄

We are discussing about comparing past events, not future alternatives. A decision can look like it's best at the time and still have catastrophic results. With hindsight we can even judge it as wrong but not by speculating what the results would be from other alternatives. At least, not quantitatively.

Originally posted by Palynka
Fake powerpoint presentations? 🙄

We are discussing about comparing past events, not future alternatives. A decision can look like it's best at the time and still have catastrophic results. With hindsight we can even judge it as wrong but not by speculating what the results would be from other alternatives. At least, not quantitatively.

So didn't people get the lesson from Vietnam ?!?!?

It's OK to make a mistake once.

Making it twice is stupidity or evil.

Maybe people will get the lesson from Iraq if others keep raising it.

Bush is a liar and a war monger. Bush, and those who support him, are a threat to the security of the world.

Originally posted by STANG
So didn't people get the lesson from Vietnam ?!?!?

It's OK to make a mistake once.

Making it twice is stupidity or evil.

Maybe people will get the lesson from Iraq if others keep raising it.

Bush is a liar and a war monger. Bush, and those who support him, are a threat to the security of the world.

Saying that vietnam was a mistake is different than saying that the world would have been better or worse if it didn't happen.

It's a twist in logic to attempt to wipe out mistakes or things we perceive as mistakes, on hindsight. This doesn't mean that they are forgivable or forgetable.

Vietnam was a mistake, in my opinion? Yes. Would the world be better off nowadays if it didn't happen? Don't know.

Originally posted by STANG
So America's invasion of Iraq is on par with 9/11 ?

No, America's arsewhipping of the taliban is on par with 9-11.....redemption was done...to a degree....Osama bin turdhead is still loose...when his balls are sizzling over coals, it will be complete...then it's Zarqawi's turn....get my drift, STANK.....😲

Originally posted by STANG
So didn't people get the lesson from Vietnam ?!?!?

It's OK to make a mistake once.

Making it twice is stupidity or evil.

Maybe people will get the lesson from Iraq if others keep raising it.

Bush is a liar and a war monger. Bush, and those who support him, are a threat to the security of the world.

So what was your experience in Vietnam, Stan? Would I be accurate in stating that Stan is a liar, baby-killler and war monger?

Originally posted by Palynka
Saying that vietnam was a mistake is different than saying that the world would have been better or worse if it didn't happen. [I left sone stuff out]

From the point of view of the villagers who were naplamed Vietnem was not a mistake; it was the end. The September the 11th attack saw the people of New York suffer the loss of their friends and family members on a scale that US citizens have never seen before in their home territory. But this kind of devastation has been going on since VE day all across the world and we (the west, mostly the US and Britain) are responsible.
The power of the US (and for that matter Britain) means that it can do harm at a level that Al Quaida cannot hope to achieve. New York sufferred the loss of two buildings and 3,000 lives. Baghdad was fired at by at least one nuclear powered submarine from my countries forces (the UK). They fired cruise missiles with conventional payloads. They count a hit as within 50 yards. I live around 50 yards from a police station and 50 yards from the Imperial War Museum. Had bombs been raining down upon my city then I would have counted as collateral. The nuclear sub fired 100 missiles. They have an accuracy of around 80%, in other words 80% of them get within 50 yards of their targets. My primeminister fired at a city in the full knowledge that he would kill children. Bastard.

Originally posted by Delmer
So what was your experience in Vietnam, Stan? Would I be accurate in stating that Stan is a liar, baby-killler and war monger?

Much ignorance. Much "nation building". Much racism. Much death.