- #71
member 5645
Wow, like a Pavlovian dog. I enter the thread, you degrade into this.Adam said:Good grief. This is pathetic.
Sort of takes the sport out of it all, doesn't it?
Wow, like a Pavlovian dog. I enter the thread, you degrade into this.Adam said:Good grief. This is pathetic.
phatmonky said:Well that works too.
It seems everyone,except the complete nutters, think that Saddam was a bad man who needed to be taken care of. The argument often comes over whether the war came too soon. Not even including Saddam's actions before sanctions, I feel there is ample evidence supporting a war. This is due to the result it will have for Americans, Iraqis, and the world.
I can bring the entire situation down to a moral issue of "Is it morally right to take lives if it saves many more?"
This is the crux of the argument, despite the many attempts to rationalize peoples' emotions with 'facts' that are innaccurate.
Probably not to the families of the dead.
To the families who received, in the mail, a videotape of their loved-one being lowered, slowly, into a plastic shredder, I'd think it would matter quite a lot.Artman said:Probably not to the families of the dead.
russ_watters said:To the families who received, in the mail, a videotape of their loved-one being lowered, slowly, into a plastic shredder, I'd think it would matter quite a lot.
I know that much of the reason for this war was simply a show of force against a state that supported terrorist organizations. However, there are good reasons for this war; ridding that country of a terrible tyrant, ending sanctions against them, dismantling some of the terrorist support networks that existed in Iraq.. Even John Kerry has said he would vote again in favor of the war, he would just go about it differently. Does it outweigh the casualties? Probably not to the families of the dead.
Actually, my point was that your comment lacks context. If we're going to consider those who died during the war, we must also consider those who were killed by Saddam before the war.Artman said:Please don't take my comment out of context.
russ_watters said:Actually, my point was that your comment lacks context. If we're going to consider those who died during the war, we must also consider those who were killed by Saddam before the war.
...ridding that country of a terrible tyrant,
phatmonky said:I can bring the entire situation down to a moral issue of "Is it morally right to take lives if it saves many more?"
This is the crux of the argument, despite the many attempts to rationalize peoples' emotions with 'facts' that are innaccurate.
phatmonky said:(Iraqis deaths from 1991-2003)-(Iraqi deaths from 2003-present)=X
END
BobG said:...And even if the Iraq-Hussein problem couldn't be pushed far enough into the future to avoid dealing with Hussein, the situation for dealing with him would have only gotten better with time.
Why is that relevant? Those were different wars in different times.Omid said:I think your formula lacks some other figures, like these :
(Afghans + Vietnamese +Japanese) deaths
They are all killed by US army.
And it is highly unlikely all the terrorists in the world have killed as much as Americans did in the last 4 decades.
Omid said:I think your formula lacks some other figures, like these :
(Afghans + Vietnamese +Japanese) deaths
They are all killed by US army.
And it is highly unlikely all the terrorists in the world have killed as much as Americans did in the last 4 decades.
And consider that after Iraq it's Iran's turn, so you will have to edit your formula again![]()