12 Apr 03
I would like to add to a point made by belgianfreak (i.e. cancer).
If you could cure all of the diseases in the world by killing one child, would you do it? How about ten children? What about one hundred? At just what number do the ends stop justifying the means? How many zeros must be tacked on to the casualty count before it stops being "justified"?
Lets pretend for a moment. Pretend you were in a hostage situation. A mad gunman tells you that you must make a decision. Either a loved one of yours must die, or ten people you have never met must die. One loved one or ten strangers. The current US foreign policy suggests that we would choose the ten strangers.
Now I don't think anyone will really answer this but I really do want a war supporter to tell me: At what point does the end stop justifying the means?
12 Apr 03
I'm not saying its right but I'm almost sure anyone would say there loved one to live.
but what we are trying to make the amount of strangers as small as possible, we hoped for none but thats almost inposibe.
it would have been best if Saddam would have coprated, but he didnt for over 12 years
12 Apr 03
Originally posted by UncleAdamMost gunmen don't cooperate with their hostages wishes. What I really want to know is WHEN it stops being acceptable. How many innocents are TOO many? Is there a precise number or a ratio? Do we even care?
I'm not saying its right but I'm almost sure anyone would say there loved one to live.
but what we are trying to make the amount of strangers as small as possible, we hoped for none but thats almost inposibe.
it would have been best if Saddam would have coprated, but he didnt for over 12 years
12 Apr 03
Originally posted by Omnislashwhile there isnt a number or a ratio I dont think we could stop now anyway, if we stop all of what we did would have been in vain and Saddam or a Son or someone close would start kill 1,000's of people in citys thart rised up or ones that just enjoyed freedom, so that is why we wont stop.
Most gunmen don't cooperate with their hostages wishes. What I really want to know is WHEN it stops being acceptable. How many innocents are TOO many? Is there a precise number or a ratio? Do we even care?
because the war is almost over (the big part) there wont be that many more innocents that die, I hope none do but there will be cross fires:'(
-Adam
12 Apr 03
Originally posted by OmnislashIf the US really cared about civilian casualties, they wouldn't have imposed over a decade of brutal sanctions on Iraq. The consevative estimate of the death toll just among children resulting from those sanctions is in the area of half a million. Dropping precision bombs on a city does not constitute evidence that the bomb droppers give a damn about civilian deaths; rather, it is evidence that they wanted to be seen as taking necessary precaution to avoid civilian deaths. But this is just spin. If the Bush administration (or any other US administration, for that matter) actually cared about the well-being of civilians, they would have supported the establishment of an international criminal court.
Most gunmen don't cooperate with their hostages wishes. What I really want to know is WHEN it stops being acceptable. How many innocents are TOO many? Is there a precise number or a ratio? Do we even care?
12 Apr 03
Originally posted by UncleAdamI must agree that it wouldn't make much sense to stop at this point. What's done is done, like it or not. I do think that it would be healthy for us to consider what has happened and honestly evaluate the WHY of it all. Regardless of what we each come to decide, if any of us truly care about our fellow man we must search our selves and try to discern what we hold to be right in this world, for our own sake as much as others.
while there isnt a number or a ratio I dont think we could stop now anyway, if we stop all of what we did would have been in vain and Saddam or a Son or someone close would start kill 1,000's of people in citys thart rised up or ones that just enjoyed freedom, so that is why we wont stop.
because the war is almost over (the big part) there wont be that many more innocents that die, I hope none do but there will be cross fires:'(
-Adam
12 Apr 03
1 edit
Originally posted by UncleAdamActually, with the Iraqi infrastructure destroyed, the civilian deaths are just beginning. Already there are large Iraqi cities that have been without drikable water for days. If you'd like to have an informed opinion on these matters, you ought to check out the web site of the World Health Organization.
while there isnt a number or a ratio I dont think we could stop now anyway, if we stop all of what we did would have been in vain and Saddam or a Son or someone close would start kill 1,000's of people in citys thart rised up or ones tha ...[text shortened]... hat die, I hope none do but there will be cross fires:'(
-Adam
Edit: Since I doubt you actually will check out the site, I've copied the following directly from their report on the health impact of the current conflict.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conflict will inevitably cause loss of lives, physical injuries, widespread mental distress, a worsening of existent malnutrition (particularly among children) and outbreaks of communicable diseases. Internally displaced and refugee populations are at particular risk. Common, preventable diseases such as diarrhoea, threaten life. Chronic illnesses that can normally be treated lead to severe suffering. The dangers of pregnancy and childbirth are amplified.
Conflict in Iraq will also reduce people’s personal security and restrict their access to food, medicines and medical supplies, clean water, sanitation, shelter and health services. People's coping capacities are already severely strained: many will find the privations of war overwhelming and need both economic and social support.
The pattern of conflict has an immediate impact on civilian suffering. If water supplies are damaged, sanitation impaired, shelter damaged, electricity cut, or health services impaired, mortality rates start to rise. If these risks are to be minimized, those involved in conflict must give priority to ensuring that civilians can access these basic needs. If access is impaired, it must be restored as rapidly as possible. Population movements and crowding in temporary shelters increase the risk of waterborne disease outbreaks such as cholera, typhoid and dysentery. In refugee and internally displaced persons’ camps during (and after) previous wars in Iraq, diarrhoeal diseases accounted for between 25% and 40% of deaths in the acute phase of the emergency. 80% of these deaths occurred in children under two year of age.
Box 1: Consequences of lack of access to a health centre
If 10 000 Iraqi people are unable to access health care for one month, at least:
30 children with diarrhoea will not be treated
55 children with respiratory infections will go untreated
5 children with pneumonia will not receive life-saving antibiotics
30 insulin-dependent diabetics will be unable to receive treatment
150 pregnant women will not receive antenatal care
20 pregnant women will deliver without trained assistance
In the longer term, disruption of surveillance for monitoring disease in the general population, breakdown of public health programmes, damage to health facilities, and malfunction of water and sanitation systems will lead to increased levels of illness, further suffering and higher death rates. The incidence of acute lower respiratory infections, diarrhoea and vaccine-preventable infections will increase. There will be outbreaks of communicable diseases – including measles, meningococcal meningitis, pertussis and diphtheria. New disease patterns - including conditions that have previously been controlled - may be observed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But I'm sure there is nothing to worry about, as the Bush/Blair administrations will be more than willing to pony up the money (at least for the Haliburton contracts, that is).
12 Apr 03
Originally posted by bbarrthere is humanitarin relife comeing as soon as the citys are scure
Actually, with the Iraqi infrastructure destroyed, the civilian deaths are just beginning. Already there are large Iraqi cities that have been without drikable water for days. If you'd like to have an informed opinion on these matters, you ought to check out the web site of the World Health Organization.
12 Apr 03
Originally posted by bbarrthey are already sending conv's to resupply the hospitels
Box 1: Consequences of lack of access to a health centre
If 10 000 Iraqi people are unable to access health care for one month, at least:
30 children with diarrhoea will not be treated
55 children with respiratory infections will go untreated
5 children with pneumonia will not receive life-saving antibiotics
30 insulin-dependent diabetics will be ...[text shortened]... will not receive antenatal care
20 pregnant women will deliver without trained assistance
12 Apr 03
bbarr and Omnislash you both make compelling arguement, that actually are reasons why i am normally against war.
However, i beleive that in this situation we have been heading for GW2 ever since GW1 ended, there was no sizeable voice for Iraq's people untill GW2 was begining. At this point i believe it was too late, because of the actions taken since GW1 there was no longer any alternative to GW2.
as for Omnislash's question i would say that in any situation the right action to take is the one that gives maxium humanitarian gain when compaired to losses.
As for the problem of Iraq's infrastructure, it was poor at best.
Now is the time for protesters to hit the streets and pressure the free world to build a new free Iraq out of the ashes of war.
The money for repairing Iraq should come souley (sp?) from the countries involved in the conflict, however the improvement and elevation of Iraq is the worlds responcability.
13 Apr 03
Originally posted by nktwildI'm not sure why you say there was no alternative to this war. It wasn't widely reported in the weeks leading to the first Gulf War, but there were no less than three different treaties offered by Saddam Hussein before that conflict to fully withdraw from Kuwait. One of these treaties was in fact brokered by the Organization of Arab States. Bush Sr. contemptuously rejected these offers of withdrawl, claiming 'we don't negotiate with aggressors'. But, of course, we do negotiate with aggressors, just not when the acts of aggression in any way effect our interests. The US was primarily responsible for bringing Saddam Hussein to power. This is public knowledge. We also provided him with the materials necessary to begin a chemical/biological weapons program. Although everyone knew he was a tyrannical, we considered him OUR tyrant, and as long as he did our bidding the US didn't give a dame about the human rights abuses he committed. Our involvement in Iraq's WMD programs should be evidence enough that the US didn't then care about the Iraqi people or other people in the region. The fact that we allowed over half a million children to die of starvation and easily preventable illness during the decade plus imposition of sanctions on Iraq puts the lie to the claim that the US was in any way concerned about the well-being of the Iraqi citizenry. Your claim that since the first war ended there hasn't been a sizeable outcry for the Iraqi people is just false. Many activists have for over a decade called for a moratorium on the sanctions we imposed on Iraq, and for the cessation of the US policy of propping us foreign dictators. If you think that the actual US motive was to liberate the Iraqi people, you are deluded. That was just the justification du jure, promulgated after the other justifications were shown either to be without merit or achievable using means other than invasion. As I've posted before, if GW Bush really wanted to prevent the human rights abuses of dictators around the world, he would have thrown the influence of the US behind the nascent international criminal court. But, since the US didn't want to faced with the uncomfortable possibility that they themselves might be subject to the jurisdiction of such a court, they undermined the court's inception and refused to be subject to it's rulings. There are almost always alternatives to war, perhaps WW2 is an exception, but it requires diplomacy and foreign policy not solely shpaed by short-term self-interest.
[b]bbarr and Omnislash you both make compelling arguement, that actually are reasons why i am normally against war.
However, i beleive that in this situation we have been heading for GW2 ever since GW1 ended, there was no sizeable voice for Iraq's people untill GW2 was begining. At this point i believe it was too late, because of the actions taken since GW1 there was no longer any alternative to GW2.
[/b]