Originally posted by Bobla45Yes, respect to him for doing what he believed in, even if I don't think he's right. I would be interested to hear his opinions having seen it himself, and not just what the press is giving out, if he'd care to post something on his (hopefully) safe return.
Whatever your politics, you gotta admit, the locals looked mighty happy to have the boys in town.😀 I'm sure in future days the arguments will accumulate here as to why this is bad, of this I have no doubt. Anyway, the name Master Sargent Rene "Al" LaPointe should'nt mean anything to most of you, but he is RHP's very own Charlie92, and he rode into Bagh ...[text shortened]... luded. Its another thing to act on your beliefs. God bless you little brother, come home soon.🙂
But because I don't agree with the war what should I have done? Joined the Iraqi army???? Believe me, if there'd been a call up for UN troups to block the US advance (peacefully) I would have been there.
Originally posted by UncleAdamjust remember that what you see is SOME of the locals - not all of them. Just as we've seen pictures of dead civilians it doesn't mean that all the civilians are dead, seeing film of civilians celebrating doesn't mean that they all are.
He is your brother, Tell him ALL of us hope for his safe return.
yes the locals do look very happy, haveing fun draging Saddams head thro the streets walking all over him😀 I cant imagin how good it must be to be librated.
-Adam
I don't however think anyone is sad Saddam is gone - the point is the method used and the president it sets.
Originally posted by belgianfreakindeed, but i believe this war was necassary because peaceful methods failed. We must start peacful talks with "the axis of evil" a new. not only have they not had the 12 year inter war period to sort themselves out, but also GW2 changes the world situation, so b4 going to the next battle ground we need to have summits with the rest of the axis of evil.
just remember that what you see is SOME of the locals - not all of them. Just as we've seen pictures of dead civilians it doesn't mean that all the civilians are dead, seeing film of civilians celebrating doesn't mean that they all ...[text shortened]... is gone - the point is the method used and the president it sets.
p.s. there was never a cease fire decleared in nam, so we are still at war with them
Originally posted by nktwild
its comon knowledge that Iraq tortures and kills those who oppose its government
There are other dictatorships just as bad (or worse) than Saddam's regime. He has simply been demonized by Bush for American political and economic reasons. If we, the US, did not stand to gain somehow from "liberating" Iraq, this invasion would never have been carried out in the first place, no matter how many of his citizens Saddam tortured or killed.
not once did i conect it with Iraq YOU did that
I was the one who brought up the child, initially. I only did so because I wanted to illustrate the fact that civilians are being killed in great numbers simply because they can't afford to get out of the way. I did not mean for the discussion to turn to Utilitarian arguments about sacrificing one life for the greater good or absurdly equating Iraq with the 9/11 attacks.
a big difference sooo great that around 50% (offical french poll) french people support saddam and hope he wins.
Source please? In debates like this, you cannot expect to blithely fling about statistics and expect them to be swallowed wholesale without offering a credible source.
but what right did saddam have to impose his standards on them?
This is circular arguing as it goes right back to the question of the validity of this war. Though it may be true that Saddam had no right to treat his people as he did, did the US have a right to violate international agreements to have him removed?
Lastly, people everywhere are pointing to the thronging masses of Iraqis celebrating their liberation in the streets. Don't forget that Baghdad has a population exceeding 5 million. You are only seeing a small fraction of that on CNN or whatever US or UK news network you're watching. I spoke to my uncle in Singapore last night and he said that he saw many more angry citizens on his news station than jubilant ones. Most of Iraq's people are still cowering in their homes wondering if their lives have changed for better or for worse.
Originally posted by belgianfreakI remember the scenes of jubilation in England in 1995 when John Major announced he was going to resign. I was at Glastonbury and everyone was happy.
just remember that what you see is SOME of the locals - not all of them. Just as we've seen pictures of dead civilians it doesn't mean that all the civilians are dead, seeing film of civilians celebrating doesn't mean that they all ...[text shortened]... is gone - the point is the method used and the president it sets.
In any country, even a democratic one, a large proportion of the population would be happy to see the back of the current leaders.
Also, TV cameras can show what they like.
PS. About the French supporting Saddam, I read 25%, possibly on the BBC website.
Originally posted by Poison Godmachine
There are other dictatorships just as bad (or worse) than Saddam's regime.
jee, u dont say. but not all dictatorships are bad, there are a couple of good ones out there.
If we, the US, did not stand to gain somehow from "liberating" Iraq, this invasion would never have been carried out in the first place.
no action has just one end result, I dont mind if america does this for politics/money, aslong as they free the Iraqi people in the process.
This is circular arguing as it goes right back to the question of the validity of this war.
The whole question of ethics on this war is circular. If we do nothing they suffer, if we intervine they suffer.
Originally posted by Varg
About the French supporting Saddam, I read 25%, possibly on the BBC website.
I got it off some french website, but like cameras, websites show what they want to should, 25% is still a good chunk of france, and still illistrates my point.
OK, now I've had some sleep I'll try 2 more analogies. These aren't meant as attacks at anyones point of view, just as an attempt to explain why I have the beliefs i do:
How many people died or were seriously wounded in the invasion? Can we take a number of 5000? (there is no official figure - the US has announced thet they "don't do body counts" ). What if I said that I could cure cancer? Cancer kills more people in the US per year that Saddam's regeme did. If it was guarenteed that all I needed was 5000/population of Iraq*population of US people to experiment on and I would have the cure for cancer. Some of the people would die fast, some would die slow. Some wouldn't die at all but would wish thatthey had. But in the first year more lives would be saved by the cure than lost to the experiments. Would it be justified?
N0. 2: The US is currently the only superpower on the planet, and as such it can theoretically do what it likes and noone can stop it.
Now imagine that there's a bigger force, from another plannet. (I know, I hate to get Sci-fi, but this is an analogy so go with me). They have vastly superior weaponry and firepower over our world, as the US had over Iraq. They see the world, and see that it has more than enough food for everyone but people still starve, more than enough housing for everyone but people still sleep on the streets, everyone is equal but racism is rampant. And the governments of the world aren't doing anything to stop this. In fact the West's foreign policies activly encourage the divide between nations and "classes" of people. By their standards, as a more socially advanced people, this is utterly evil.
Would it be justified if they attacked the world, wiped out it's armies who were just trying to defend their homeland families and way of life, kill many civilians because "war always has civilian casualties" and oust the govenments. Would this be justified? Would you be happy to see the US, amoung other countries, attacked by an foreign power which killes your neighbours and your family? You have a pretty good system at the moment, but only a fool would say it was perfect - would these aliens have the right to invade you and replace the American way of life with theirs because they knew/thought they knew it was better?
At the end of it they promise a eutopian society, but it is yet to be seen if that will occur or if the governments that they allow to take office are puppets. And is their society really eutopian? The govenment will be less brutal, but will it really be better? And will we be forced to sell off our water reserves at a bargin price?
analogy 1 shows the root of ur fears. Death. You fail to realise that the people testing the drug would be dying of cancer anyway. All of the experiment tests would be justified, hell you would have cancer victims lining up at the door to be tested, its commonly known as hope.
Remember on a long enough time scale, the survival rate of everone reaches ZERO. death isnt something to be feared or to hide from, gets gonna happen no matter what, get over it.
You spend your time worring about people dying, im worring about them living, without scarfice, there is no progression.
analogy 2, Utopia?? sign me up!!
Originally posted by nktwildthis will be my last post in response to you as you do not take the time to read mine properly, or think about them in any meaningful way. I never said that the 5000 people would be cancer patients, I just said 5000 people. Healthy people of all ages, including children and pregnant women, picked at random. You can't justify killing innocents to save innocents.
analogy 1 shows the root of ur fears. Death. You fail to realise that the people testing the drug would be dying of cancer anyway. All of the experiment tests would be justified, hell you would have cancer victims lining up at the door to be tested, its commonly known as hope.
Remember on a long enough time scale, the survival rate of everone reaches ZERO. ...[text shortened]... bout them living, without scarfice, there is no progression.
analogy 2, Utopia?? sign me up!!
You also entirely missed the point of the 2nd analogy. I was trying to show you that the system that you love som much, the US way of life, could be seen as barbaric and evil by a more progressed culture. Would that give them the right to invade you and set up the US in their image? I never said that it would really eutopian, just that they thought it was. Much as the average American thinks that the US way of life is the best there is.
I have no fear of death - I just don't encourage needless death & suffereing. I enjoy life. I explore it and I am pretty sure I am more open minded than you are. How many different countries have you lived in? How many have you even bothered to visit? Sit at home in wrapped in your US flag and convince yourself that your country can do no wrong, while the rest of the world realises that it is not terrorism that they must fear (something most countries have dealt with for years) but that the only superpower in the world thinks it can do as it pleases just because it can.
Originally posted by belgianfreak
this will be my last post in response to you as you do not take the time to read mine properly, or think about them in any meaningful way.
uh-huh, is this b4 or after you fail to properly read or think about my posts?
I never said that the 5000 people would be cancer patients, I just said 5000 people.
which then falsifies your analogy, testing the drug on healthy people provides zero results.
You can't justify killing innocents to save innocents.
logic dictates that the need of the many outways the need of the few, or the one.
looking past logic, i have discussed this point with you many times already and you fail to even regocnise it, so ill try again.
You are absolutly right,
1)I cant justify killing innocents to save innocents, but
2)i cannot justify standing by whilst innocents die at the hands of their leader.
I examined both situations and IMHO statement 2 justifies statement 1.
You also entirely missed the point of the 2nd analogy
to clarify. i agree with you, hence no counter agruement, but if someone offered me Utopia, i would grab it with open arms.
Would that give them the right to invade you and set up the US in their image?
none, and I have NEVER said any one has that right.
i just state that by anyones standards the regime had to be stopped, peace hasnt worked in 12years, during which innocent people died, you didnt speak out about civilian deaths then.
I was trying to show you that the system that you love som much, the US way of life, could be seen as barbaric and evil by a more progressed culture.
my culture?? are all supporters of this war instantly american then? please keep ur racist steriotypical views to urself
barbaric? yes
evil? id use misguided
I just don't encourage needless death & suffereing.
unlike saddam who you so quickly defend
the only superpower in the world thinks it can do as it pleases just because it can.
ya think? gosh i was under the impression that it thought it could do as it pleases because they were all aliens!!
Sit at home in wrapped in your US flag and convince yourself that your country can do no wrong
i no own flaggie U.S. i no american. and I know for a fact that my country has f*cked the world more often than a retired hooker.
on reading the below i have never laughed so hard in my life!!
I have no fear of death
really, so why do you allways argue about death, whilst i argue about live and improving life.
I am pretty sure I am more open minded than you are.
do you know me? no.
have you listened to my points? no youve ignored them and moved on
you have no idea how open minded i am.
How many different countries have you lived in? How many have you even bothered to visit?
oh im sorry, i didnt know i had to give up my education and jet off around the world before i could voice my opinions on current affairs.
wouldnt expect any 21 yr old still in education to have traveled much.
Sit at home in wrapped in your US flag and convince yourself that your country can do no wrong,
oops no i already replied to that one
In summary belgianfreak i have the following:
You have argued seing just one point of view, then you start shaping your arguements to reply to things i never even said or implied.
that having failed you resort to half-truth anlogies that neither relate to the situation or repressent it.
this havening fialed, you, failing to recognise my views, claim that i have not recognised yours, even though they shape my arguements.
and finaly you resort to personal attacks to justify to view.
ur greater than thou attitude does not wash