|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/15/2006 07:18:22 PM · #51 |
let's just say the war has caused the deaths of ALOT of innocent people. No one can argue that. So... (prepare to slam me...)
Who are the terrorists?
|
|
|
|
01/30/2007 02:17:19 PM · #52 |
Black Sabbath - War Pigs.
Generals gathered in their masses
Just like witches at black masses
Evil minds that plot destruction
Sorcerers of deaths construction
In the fields the bodies burning
As the war machine keeps turning
Death and hatred to mankind
Poisoning their brainwashed minds, oh lord yeah!
Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor
Time will tell on their power minds
Making war just for fun
Treating people just like pawns in chess
Wait till their judgement day comes, yeah!
Now in darkness, world stops turning
As the war machine keeps burning
No more war pigs of the power
Hand of God has struck the hour
Day of judgement, God is calling
On their knees, the war pigs crawling
Begging mercy for their sins
Satan, laughing, spreads his wings
All right now!
unfortunately there will always be war. oddly enough a good majority of them are religously oriented. this iraq war - in a sense - is religiously oriented.
Message edited by author 2007-01-30 14:21:12.
|
|
|
|
01/30/2007 03:08:21 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I know that it is a well rehearsed topic, but this is a particular issue that has come up time and time again and this latest report deserves to be highlighted.
It is important for those who support the war to acknowledge its consequences: in this case, conservative estimates indicate 655,000 Iraqi people have died to date who probably would not have died but for the allied invasion. That it 2.5% of the population of Iraq, or 1 in every 40 people.
//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6040054.stm
These figures might be acceptable if the war had a moral justification or if it had achieved something (other than increased tension). But it increasingly appears that this is the price paid for democracy - that is, (until recently) the price paid by the Iraqi people for GWB to gain the popular vote in the US. |
Okay, I used to get told millions died, mostly children, because of the sanctions.
Do I believe those deaths are cause of the war? No...I believe they're because we've allowed our hands to be tied. We can also consider the old wars between Iraq & Iran. As in a sense that is what's been going on. Iranian Shiite extremists are aiding their faction in a continuation of a cultural war that's centuries old.
So it's leaving things in limbo. Because we've let politics guide the war and not just get the job done.
Of the casualties that have been occurring, a vast majority are from muslim on muslim violence.
We've sat back and avoiding getting the job done so as not to engage terrorists in mosques, etc. But they're blowing up mosques. What's the point of considering them sacred and not going after islamofascists if they're not going to even do the same.
It's a shame, that America is showing more respect for mosques than the people claiming to be acting in the name of Islam.
That said, who's to say things wouldn't have happened anyways? Who's to say Iran wouldn't have been trying to cause a civil war? They're instigating all over the middle-east (Lebanon, Syria, Israel, etc.)
***
So, if the U.S. had intervened in Rwanda when the genocide began. There'd be some pointing to 100,000 dead. Instead, no one intervined because we didn't want to deal with the mess or blood on our hands.
The result, over a million Rwandans killed in genocide.
We are dealing with regimes that are bent on destruction. Entities who have sworn to plunge the whole world into chaos. Entities who have said "no peace".
|
|
|
|
01/30/2007 03:21:27 PM · #54 |
Also, I question any "statistic" based report.
What percentage of those polled were in Bagdhad (or the few other really hot zones). of which most reports have stated about 90% of the conflicts are occurring.
If you poll those and then apply that to the entire nation of Iraq your statistical error will be exceedingly high.
For example:
Say Bagdhad and the other hot regions account for 90% of the deaths and cover about 10% of Iraq.
It'd be like saying that we polled 10% and there were 90 deaths. Therefore there must be 900 dead. When in truth, 90% of the deaths occurred in those regions. So there were actually only 100 deaths.
Our statistics, just created an figure that is inflated nearly 10x. That doesn't even account for the fact that in a region where many families are inter-related by marriage. If you ask ten families "How many people do you know that have died since the war." And each says 10. And you record that as 100 deaths. But if one of those dead was a cousin. He could be counted a number of times by several different families.
So, I'm never quite trusting of statistics...
I was taught that there are three types of lies:
1. White lies
2. Damn lies
3 Statistics |
|
|
|
01/31/2007 05:55:38 AM · #55 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Also, I question any "statistic" based report.
... |
RonB made the same argument. This was my response:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by RonB:
12 out of the 47 clusters ( 0ver 25% ) were in Baghdad - hardly a village of a just a few streets. No detail is given as to which cities/villages were selected in large regions with populations heavily concentrated in just a few major cities. |
The clusters are located within *provinces* in proportion to the population count. Baghdad city is in Baghdad province, but not all of Baghdad province is composed of city. It is a small populous province - more study is required to calculate stats for the province because there are more people there and the risk of a disproportionate survey is therefore greater. Again, you mistake rigour for fault (taking more surveys in Baghdad to get a better picture, rather than accidentally doing just one survey and it happenning to be in an area that has suffered well or badly). |
I too show a healthy scepticism of stats - that's why the title of the thread refers to the conservative, or lower estimate, of the body count rather than the middle ground or the high estimate.
It is a shame that none of our armed forces keep published tallies of the true cost of the war - if they did, we might not need to carry out such surveys. Unfortunately, a very strong probability is the best information we have.
Message edited by author 2007-01-31 05:56:04.
|
|
|
|
01/31/2007 06:18:08 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
We can also consider the old wars between Iraq & Iran. As in a sense that is what's been going on. Iranian Shiite extremists are aiding their faction in a continuation of a cultural war that's centuries old. |
How does this alleviate our responsibility? Can we just say "we acted without thinking, without taking into account longstanding tensions, throwing our weight around with no real thought to the consequences" and absolve ourselves from responsibility?
Originally posted by theSaj:
So it's leaving things in limbo. Because we've let politics guide the war and not just get the job done. |
"get the job done" by doing what? I am not sure that there is an easy military solution.
I agree with you that the war is highly political - initially started for political reasons, justified for political reasons, and now a political disaster. There was never a military threat, the military solution was always inappropriate, and the absence of any real guidance on what our objectives are/were (do we have any?) makes military success very hard to identify.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Do I believe those deaths are cause of the war? No...I believe they're because we've allowed our hands to be tied. [...] Of the casualties that have been occurring, a vast majority are from muslim on muslim violence. |
I agree. Violence that would not have occurred but for our actions.
Originally posted by theSaj:
It's a shame, that America is showing more respect for mosques than the people claiming to be acting in the name of Islam. |
I agree - the mosques represent cultural heritage. The polarising aspect of extreme religiosity (even between factions of the same religion - as happens in most religions) is one of the most troubling aspects of religion altogether.
Originally posted by theSaj:
That said, who's to say things wouldn't have happened anyways? Who's to say Iran wouldn't have been trying to cause a civil war? They're instigating all over the middle-east (Lebanon, Syria, Israel, etc.) |
Without the power handed to Iran by coalition action in Iraq, Iran would probably have found that very difficult.
Originally posted by theSaj:
We are dealing with regimes that are bent on destruction. Entities who have sworn to plunge the whole world into chaos. Entities who have said "no peace". |
Erm - when did Saddam Hussein say "no peace"?
The coalition forces have invaded another country and stripped it of law and order. The forces have failed to reinstitute law and order. Other countries and religious extremists are using that failure to advance their own causes. Our forces are failing to stop them.
What usually happens to countries that invade others on a pretext? What if they kill or allow to be killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people? What if they do this because god tells them to do it? What if they do this in order to obtain a financial and political advantage for themselves and their friends?
I cannot understand how Bush & Blair have avoided the ultimate sanctions by now. I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that history will view them as war criminals and the invasion an act of evil.
The largest ever peace marches failed to stop them. I am sad that we did not somehow do more.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2007 10:19:32 AM · #57 |
Religious Police
This is enough reason for me to support any war against muslim extremeists. This is the kind of world that hardliners would impose on Europe, North/South America, and many other countries. I can only imagine living under conditions where I was FORCED to pray 5 times a day, or restricted from consuming one of my favorite beverages, or couldn't express my happiness in celebratory dance. The idea that men and woman could not associate with each other if they were not related or chaperoned seems very archaic to me. Can you imagine a woman being arrested for having a few hairs showing. This is truly an infringement on personal choice. Sad sad state of affairs (imo). The reason the "terrorists" hate us (that is the US and YOU - non-muslims) is due to this behaviour code that is deemed righteous.
No thank you.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2007 02:23:17 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by Flash:
This is enough reason for me to support any war against muslim extremeists. |
Given that Iraq was moderate, Saddam Hussein had been a firm proponent of secularism, had fought a decade long war in part against the threat of fundamental religious rule posed by Iran, and had no links with terrorism, do you accept that your statement had nothing to do with Iraq - at least until the coalition invaded and made it a breeding ground for extremism?
While you might support the current campaign, do you accept that your argument presents precisely zero justification for the original invasion (the result of which is the current conflagration)?
Would you also accept that oppressive religious extremism sponsored by other religions is equally objectionable?
Re: Saudi, do you propose that the US invades and kills hundreds of thousands in order to prevent the kind of behaviour that you object to, or should it assert political pressure?
|
|
|
|
02/05/2007 03:26:56 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
[Would you also accept that oppressive religious extremism sponsored by other religions is equally objectionable? |
Yes. Including various christian campains. The fact that christians behaved badly (as did many other religious warriors), does not excuse current Islamic radicals from me wanting them stopped. Their view of the world is worth fighting to stop. However, if a people chose to accept those rules (freely), then that is their choice.
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
While you might support the current campaign, do you accept that your argument presents precisely zero justification for the original invasion (the result of which is the current conflagration)?
|
Not exactly. Although you may see this as the "same" war due to the single timetable, I do not see this as the same war. There have been 3 wars in Iraq, since the initial phase. The 1st war was to remove Sadam. That war was quick, decisive, and won handily, with I might add thousands of cheering Iraqis glad it was accomplished. The 2nd war was with the insurgency. It piggybacked the 1st war, however it is not the same war. The 2nd war included the battles in Falujah and Bagdad where the politicians started running the decisions, whereby letting Al Sadr maintain his militia. This is the war that got screwed up. As is typically the case when politicians try to tell field generals how to fight. Leave diplomacy to the politicians. Military generals lead fighting men/women. Let them fight or remove them. Regardless of the politicians interference, the elections were a historic event. No country or peoples have ever attained the right to elect a government without a high price paid in lives. The 3rd war, is the internal war between the Shia and the Sunnis, with the military in an advisory/support role. This is the war currently being fought and supported by the extremists. Yes I support our support for those trying to eliminate the freedoms that Iraqis put their life on the line for when voting. Just as I believe those mentioned in the Saudi article should be free to choose as well.
The 1st war was based on the violation of UN resolutions and the reluctance of the world body to act. In the absence of that action, a small group of concerned nations took responsibility. As should have the entire world. If the entire world would have took a unified action, instead of protecting their own ecomonic interests, then we would not be in this state. The world failed the coalition, not the other way around.
The 2nd war, was again the result of the world body sitting on its hands. Attempting to make the coalition the scapegoat, while in truth it was their own inaction that allowed the situation to get so far out of hand.
The 3rd war, is more of the same, with the world body wanting to blame the coalition publicly, while secretly hoping that they remove the radical elements before they come knocking on their countries door. The evidence of the latter is in the massive amounts of law enforcement interaction to thwart terrorism activities. This is the true measure of the 3rd war.
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Re: Saudi, do you propose that the US invades and kills hundreds of thousands in order to prevent the kind of behaviour that you object to, or should it assert political pressure?
|
I do not propose that the US invade anybody. I do expect the world body to enforce its resoultions, or don't pass them. I do expect the world body to keeps its nose out of business it has no intention of enforcing. However, if the world body chooses to involve itself in the affairs of any one country, then they had better be prepared to act, or expect someone to act for them.
Do you support the arrest and imprisonment of men failing to pray 5 times a day? Or men and women who comingle? Or women who have a bit of hair showing? As an "unbeliever" I find it difficult to imagine you would support being forced to pary to anything, let alone 5 times a day.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2007 03:30:32 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Given that Iraq was moderate, Saddam Hussein had been a firm proponent of secularism, had fought a decade long war in part against the threat of fundamental religious rule posed by Iran, and had no links with terrorism... |
I interrupt this propaganda with a couple of facts:
On March 4th, 2004, Saddaam Hussein said
"We are glad of the Istishhadiyyah [suicide] and heroic spirit of the Palestinian people. By Allah, what the Palestinian people does is beyond my expectations"
Does not that sound like Hussein supported terrorism?
On March 11th, 2004, Hussein's Deputy Prime Minister, Tariq Aziz, said
"President Saddam Hussein has recently told the head of the Palestinian political office, Faroq al-Kaddoumi, his decision to raise the sum granted to each family of the martyrs of the Palestinian uprising to $25,000 instead of $10,000"
On June 23rd, 2004, Mrs. Khaldiya Isma̢۪il Abd al-Aziz al-Hurani received a "President Saddam Hussein̢۪s Grant" check for $25,000 as payment for the suicide/murder perpetrated by her son Fuad when he blew himself up in an Israeli diner, taking the lives of 11 Israeli's and wounding 52 others.
Would you not classify Faud as a terrorist? Was it not his intent to drive terror into the hearts and minds of the Israeli's?
These suicide bombers were terrorists. Saddaam offered incentives to them before they committed acts of terrorism, and paid money to their relatives after they commited those acts.
There is more, much more, but I think that's enough to prove my point - Saddam did, indeed, have links with terrorism.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2007 04:05:09 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by RonB:
I interrupt this propaganda with a couple of facts: |
Of course - you talk in "facts", whereas I talk in something else.
Here is one source of more facts: //www.husseinandterror.com . I anticipate that (representing a transparent agenda) it is a reasonably full list of the links identified by people who need to justify their actions (needless to say, for different reasons than those provided at the time).
If this is the extent of the links by which Iraq was linked to terrorism, then there is not much of a case. Half a dozen cobbled together examples trying to prove a point. This is no more a country that supported terrorism than the US is equally a country supporting terrorism - the US has a long history of supporting "freedom fighters" and allowing them to be supported in causes helpful to it.
Maybe I should have said "no substantial links", or "effectively no links", but your "facts" have the bearing of a desperate retrospective search for justification, rather than an overwhelming weight of evidence.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2007 04:25:21 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Not exactly. Although you may see this as the "same" war due to the single timetable, I do not see this as the same war. There have been 3 wars in Iraq, since the initial phase.
The 1st war was to remove Sadam. ...
The 2nd war was with the insurgency. ...
The 3rd war, is the internal war between the Shia and the Sunnis
|
How convenient. War 1 (incidentally, an illegal basis for war) is cast around an objective that was not voiced as a reason (probably because it was illegal) but does represent the only achievement - by retrospectively declaring it an objective, you can claim victory.
War 2 - you claim it was the fault of the politicians for not giving the generals free reign, but at the same time it was the fault of the rest of the world. So - presumably only non-US politicians fault that they failed to support the first illegal war.
War 3 - somehow distinguished from being a natural and predictable consequence of the earlier failures, independently justifiable because of its nature.
My own view is that the coalition invaded another country and failed to consider the consequences. You cannot separate out bits that you think you can blame other people for when the whole mess stems from a disastrous decision. Lay the blame where it falls - with that misguided and shortsighted decision in 2003 to invade.
Originally posted by Flash:
No country or peoples have ever attained the right to elect a government without a high price paid in lives. |
Apart from the dozens that have done precisely that.
Originally posted by Flash:
I do not propose that the US invade anybody. I do expect the world body to enforce its resoultions, or don't pass them. |
Or perhaps, when the "world" explicitly refuses to permit one country a course of action, that country should not ignore the refusal and reinterpret earlier decisions and claim that it already has that permission.
Originally posted by Flash:
Do you support the arrest and imprisonment of men failing to pray 5 times a day? Or men and women who comingle? Or women who have a bit of hair showing? As an "unbeliever" I find it difficult to imagine you would support being forced to pary to anything, let alone 5 times a day. |
Of course not - however, I am not the one saying that this justifies killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people in order to impose your own particular brand of morality.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2007 04:35:46 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
War 1 (incidentally, an illegal basis for war) |
Iraq was in breach of the cease-fire terms of UN Resolution 681. THE UN acknowledged that this was so in resolution 1441. The basis for a resumption of hostilities needed no further justification. |
|
|
|
02/05/2007 06:14:13 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Iraq was in breach of the cease-fire terms of UN Resolution 681. THE UN acknowledged that this was so in resolution 1441. The basis for a resumption of hostilities needed no further justification. |
So why did the US and the UK go back to the United Nations seeking a new resolution authorising the use of force against Iraq?
Because resolution 1441 *did not* authorise the use of force. |
|
|
|
02/06/2007 07:07:47 AM · #65 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
How convenient. War 1 (incidentally, an illegal basis for war) is cast around an objective that was not voiced as a reason (probably because it was illegal) but does represent the only achievement - by retrospectively declaring it an objective, you can claim victory. |
Simply not true. Violation of UN resolutions AND the repeated failure to enforce those resolutions, was clearly a precursor to the coalition's actions. There were others (ie WMD), however, the repeated violations of the resolutions was paramount to the justification of coalition action. Not sure what the press was saying in the UK, but here in the states, the message was clear.
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Of course not - however, I am not the one saying that this justifies killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people in order to impose your own particular brand of morality.
|
This is where you consistently confuse me. You state that this war has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Yet you stake out positions in support if innocents being killed, regularly in other threads. You support gun control, allowing innocents to be victimized. You support abortion, allowing innocents to be victimized. Yet those that would harbor terrorists, those who would send their children to blow themselves up in the name of "Allah", these you claim are the innocents.
I am beginning to believe that you simply dislike the US and even perhaps your own UK. Not sure what your annimosity stems from, but I do not believe that I can quench your thirst for what comes off as support for those who would do you harm, if they had the chance.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 12:52:28 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Violation of UN resolutions AND the repeated failure to enforce those resolutions, was clearly a precursor to the coalition's actions. There were others (ie WMD), however, the repeated violations of the resolutions was paramount to the justification of coalition action. Not sure what the press was saying in the UK, but here in the states, the message was clear. |
Quite clearly, the coalition did not consider that the violations of the resolutions justified war. As jhonan said, why did the US and UK seek a resolution supporting the war, if they already had permission? Why did they only decide that 1441 was sufficient after a further resolution was refused? Why did they think that they had the authority to invade under 1441 when the UN had subsequently and explicitly refused to sanction an invasion?
In the UK, it was heavily reported that the message being broadcast fallaciously in the US was that there was a terrorist link between Iraq and 9/11 and that this combined with US patriotism had led to a mass misunderstanding and consequent popular support for the invasion.
Originally posted by Flash:
This is where you consistently confuse me. |
Hmm - I seem capable of understanding your position, while disagreeing with it. I am not sure if that means I am lucky to be clever enough to be able to understand alternate points of view, or if it means that I am unlucky to be so stupid as not to be able to understand my own point of view. Given that my point of view is mainstream and not generally considered incoherent or unfathomable, I'll guess that I am simply lucky to be able to understand more than one point of view (even if I disagree with some of them).
Originally posted by Flash:
You state that this war has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Yet you stake out positions in support if innocents being killed, regularly in other threads. You support gun control, allowing innocents to be victimized. You support abortion, allowing innocents to be victimized. Yet those that would harbor terrorists, those who would send their children to blow themselves up in the name of "Allah", these you claim are the innocents. |
This point is done to death elsewhere: you want deregulation for all people except for pregnant women whom you don't think should have control over their own body. I think that guns have no place in a civilised society (my POV is that guns result in innocent people being victimised following the escalation of violence). I don't consider an early foetus to have the same rights as an adult - as a consequence, from my point of view (if you can try to understand it even if you disagree) the lives of the innocent Iraqi men, women and children for whose deaths we are responsible for no apparent overriding reason (other than oil), cannot be equated with the destruction of cells by the reasoned decision of a woman exercising control over her own body.
I don't support terrorism. I do object to countries invading others on a pretense and then brainwashing their citizens to think that the invasion is in the name of a supposed "war on terror", suspending rational debate with patriotic jingo-ism and creating a climate of fear.
Originally posted by Flash:
I am beginning to believe that you simply dislike the US and even perhaps your own UK. Not sure what your annimosity stems from, but I do not believe that I can quench your thirst for what comes off as support for those who would do you harm, if they had the chance. |
I disagree with their foreign policies in these aspects: if nothing else, please understand that people can debate and oppose policies without hating people or countries, or supporting terrorism or other countries/people. I don't have animosity or dislike - I strongly disagree. Given that I live in a supposed democracy, I choose to voice my concerns and call for justice to be done.
If you are unable to comprehend other people's points of view or empathise with them, then your side of this debate will be little more than you merely asserting one point of view to be "right". That is not a very convincing debating style.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 02:43:55 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Quite clearly, the coalition did not consider that the violations of the resolutions justified war. As jhonan said, why did the US and UK seek a resolution supporting the war, if they already had permission? Why did they only decide that 1441 was sufficient after a further resolution was refused? Why did they think that they had the authority to invade under 1441 when the UN had subsequently and explicitly refused to sanction an invasion?
In the UK, it was heavily reported that the message being broadcast fallaciously in the US was that there was a terrorist link between Iraq and 9/11 and that this combined with US patriotism had led to a mass misunderstanding and consequent popular support for the invasion. |
The UN chose to not sanction the coalition actions based on personal selfish reasons as have been illuminated in many threads since. France had illegal dealings with Iraq. Kofi Annan's son had illegal dealings, and on and on and on. Lots of folks with stinky fingers in the crap. That was why the UN did not support the actions. Preserving self interests. NOT for any particular affection for Saddam or even Iraqis. Your recollection of history is quite flawed.
Regarding the UK's press and the terrorists link...I stay pretty current on my daily reads (at least 4 news sources - print, and several broadcast news) and I do not remember terrorism as the catalyst. Was it mentioned? Sure.
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
This point is done to death elsewhere: you want deregulation for all people except for pregnant women whom you don't think should have control over their own body. I think that guns have no place in a civilised society (my POV is that guns result in innocent people being victimised following the escalation of violence). I don't consider an early foetus to have the same rights as an adult - as a consequence, from my point of view (if you can try to understand it even if you disagree) the lives of the innocent Iraqi men, women and children for whose deaths we are responsible for no apparent overriding reason (other than oil), cannot be equated with the destruction of cells by the reasoned decision of a woman exercising control over her own body. |
1. You do not know my position on abortion as I have not stated it. 2. I have only challenged your position on abortion as it serves to illustrate my purpose - that you seem to defend the sanctity of life as it applies to some, while excusing it for others. Whereby, I excuse the sanctity for criminals and the unborn. I understand your point of view quite clearly on abortion. I do not understand how you can be comfortable with that "procedure" and have opposition to other procedures - like ending an aggressive assault or ending the life of a henious criminal. I am comfortable with each. As I believe it is a "consistent" viewpoint. Just as I would be able to understand someone who opposed the death penalty, gun ownership, and abortion. This 2 out of 3 thing is the problem.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 03:14:14 PM · #68 |
You know, when I think of people who make a true attempt to empathise with others who do not share the same feelings, and those who would never assert that their point of view is the right one, I think of you legalbeagle.
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
If you are unable to comprehend other people's points of view or empathise with them, then your side of this debate will be little more than you merely asserting one point of view to be "right". That is not a very convincing debating style. |
|
|
|
|
02/08/2007 01:37:22 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by Flash:
The UN chose to not sanction the coalition actions based on personal selfish reasons as have been illuminated in many threads since. France had illegal dealings with Iraq. Kofi Annan's son had illegal dealings, and on and on and on. Lots of folks with stinky fingers in the crap. That was why the UN did not support the actions. Preserving self interests. NOT for any particular affection for Saddam or even Iraqis. Your recollection of history is quite flawed. |
This is the first time that I have seen self-interest as a reason for the political objectors to object to the war. Self interest is more commonly alleged against the aggressors - oil, votes, revenge for daddy, money for Halliburton, etc.
Certainly, when I marched with the other millions of protesters in the largest protest march in history (15 Feb 2003), I had no personal interest other than concern for the Iraqi people. Outside the US, the popular opinion was anti-war.
I acknowledge that there was an element of probable corruption re: Iraq food for oil, but this hardly justifies a charge that the UN was rigged to oppose US invasion for purely corrupt reasons - the anti-war sentiment was a very strong one.
Originally posted by Flash:
I do not understand how you can be comfortable with that "procedure" and have opposition to other procedures - like ending an aggressive assault or ending the life of a henious criminal. I am comfortable with each. As I believe it is a "consistent" viewpoint. Just as I would be able to understand someone who opposed the death penalty, gun ownership, and abortion. This 2 out of 3 thing is the problem. |
I would not class gun ownership strongly with the other two issues: it relates to a civil order/vigilantism debate more strongly than a right to life debate.
I acknowledge that if you were to consider abortion and the death penalty solely in the context of "right to life" for equal subject matter, then it may be considered perverse to support one and not the other.
The debate is broader than a straightforward "right to life" and the subject matter is not equal.
In the case of abortion, the right of a foetus is relative to that of the mother's right over her body - there is a clash. In relation to the death penalty, there is no competing interest and no balance to be achieved (unless you were to believe that society has a right to kill criminals - which I don't).
My criticism of the death penalty and support of abortion reflects the practical issues - the inherent cost and uncertainty of perpetuating the death penalty, the unconscionability in forcing an unwilling mother to give birth & eliminating dangerous backstreet abortions. This is in addition to a more philosophical belief in an enduring right to life for all people, but which I consider only arises after a period of gestation - probably viability, or perhaps identifiable consciousness.
Hopefully this helps reconcile some of your confusion.
Message edited by author 2007-02-08 13:39:33.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2007 01:25:10 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
The debate is broader than a straightforward "right to life" and the subject matter is not equal.
In the case of abortion, the right of a foetus is relative to that of the mother's right over her body - there is a clash. In relation to the death penalty, there is no competing interest and no balance to be achieved (unless you were to believe that society has a right to kill criminals - which I don't).
My criticism of the death penalty and support of abortion reflects the practical issues - the inherent cost and uncertainty of perpetuating the death penalty, the unconscionability in forcing an unwilling mother to give birth & eliminating dangerous backstreet abortions. This is in addition to a more philosophical belief in an enduring right to life for all people, but which I consider only arises after a period of gestation - probably viability, or perhaps identifiable consciousness. |
1) You are correct - the subject matter is not equal
2) In relation to the death penalty, there IS a competing interest and a balance to be achieved: a) normally, the only other logical choice for those receiving the death penalty would be life imprisonment with no chance of parole; b) while both execution and life imprisonment place a financial burden on the taxpaying public, other than keeping a dangerous criminal confined, life imprisonment provides a much worse return on investment to the taxpayers. Thus the competing interest is one of the financial burden on the taxpayers - which is a simple extrapolation of one of your arguments supporting abortion, namely, the unconscionability in forcing unwilling taxpayers to pay for supporting a criminal that has no chance of ever becoming a contributing member of society.
(Note: I am absolutely not arguing in support of the death penalty. In fact, I oppose it. I'm just pointing out that the argument of competing interests to support abortion is without merit. ).
As for your other argument concerning right to life, how would you qualify which people have the expertise to determine with 100% accuracy when viability occurs in each pregnancy, or when fetal consciousness becomes identifiable? You argue that there is uncertainty in the death penalty - presuming that you mean uncertainty in knowing with 100% certainty that the accused is guilty ( there have been cases where innocent persons have been executed ) - and I would argue that there have been cases where a viable ( or conscious ) foetus has been aborted. And I would argue, if one cannot be 100% sure, then one ought not to proceed with an abortion. |
|
|
|
02/10/2007 03:47:26 PM · #71 |
| I was reading today that Barack Obama wants to bring US troops home from Iraq by March 2008. This is great news. I imagine that everyone who supports the troops will be backing this kind of decision. |
|
|
|
02/11/2007 05:05:32 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by hokie:
[...] Now that I have offended EVERYONE...:-/ |
if you repent, we will forgive you for being a hokie fan... |
|
|
|
02/12/2007 06:54:53 AM · #73 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
I was reading today that Barack Obama wants to bring US troops home from Iraq by March 2008. This is great news. I imagine that everyone who supports the troops will be backing this kind of decision. |
I don't know - "supporting the troops" has so many meanings. The only consistency about it is that you may be condemned for "not supporting the troops" and pretty much any political decision can be interpreted either way.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2007 07:41:44 AM · #74 |
Originally posted by RonB:
2) In relation to the death penalty, there IS a competing interest and a balance to be achieved: ...[the] financial burden on the taxpaying public... I'm just pointing out that the argument of competing interests to support abortion is without merit. |
I am not sure that I would go so far as "without merit".
There are a lot of potential competing interests in both cases - but IMO no *significant* competing interests in the case of the death penalty. The competing financial interest is very weak: the cost of life imprisonment v cost of proper review of a death penalty case are not far apart, and the number of instances are too few to cause any great (or even noticeable) burden on society. There are plenty of states that do have mandatory life sentencing without bankrupting the populace.
Originally posted by RonB:
As for your other argument concerning right to life, how would you qualify which people have the expertise to determine with 100% accuracy when viability occurs in each pregnancy, or when fetal consciousness becomes identifiable? You argue that there is uncertainty in the death penalty - presuming that you mean uncertainty in knowing with 100% certainty that the accused is guilty ( there have been cases where innocent persons have been executed ) - and I would argue that there have been cases where a viable ( or conscious ) foetus has been aborted. And I would argue, if one cannot be 100% sure, then one ought not to proceed with an abortion. |
I understand the position. You are right that in both cases a policy decision is made that "we will go to [x] lengths" or prescribe an arbitrary time limit of [x], before either the death penalty or abortion is permitted. There will be a degree of uncertainty in all cases, to which arbitrary rules must be applied in order to make the policy decision effective (as with many things, you could never have a workable law that required 100% certainty in either case).
I do not wish to get into specifics of what point the arbitrary limit for abortion should be set, or what level of proof should be achieved for a death penalty. It should suffice to say that I would argue that, if you are going to have abortion and/or the death penalty, then you should set those arbitrary requirements conservatively.
I would argue that there remains a distinction between abortion and the death row prisoner, beyond the strength of the competing rights in the case of the abortion. *If* you accept that full human rights (including the right to life) do not attach to a foetus from the point of conception, then there must be a time at which in fact abortion is not objectionable (even if the process for identifying that time is not 100% accurate). The same cannot be said in relation to a death row prisoner.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2007 08:06:51 AM · #75 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
I don't know - "supporting the troops" has so many meanings. The only consistency about it is that you may be condemned for "not supporting the troops" and pretty much any political decision can be interpreted either way. |
Argh! - You're trying to catch us off guard with the username change? ;-) |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/10/2025 01:08:24 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/10/2025 01:08:24 PM EDT.
|
