Support NeoGAF

[mugurumakensei]

The only reason why the US went after Saddam was because he invaded oil rich Kuwait. We supplied him with the weapons in the 80s, which he used to perform all those atrocious acts.

It should also be noted that we had secret deals with the kuwaitis, and they were stealing oil from iraq as well to fulfill their deal with us. So, we forced the situation through our own greed.

 

[Oblivion]

Did you watch towards the end? The point at which they start firing rockets with a pedestrian in the way, and then later a crowd of onlookers is pretty fucking inexcusable imo.

Edit: Courtesy of Brinbe

I mean really? What the hell?

WHAT THE FUCK? Where was the rocket? Holy shit....

 

[TheHeretic]

As someone else in the thread said, in this day and age, going to war guarantees that many civilians are going to die. Whatever the logic behind it, there is never anything moral about war, and any attempts by one side to assert moral superiority over the other have to be, to some degree, laughable. We are told that the military wishes to avoid killing civilians, so when incidents like this one happen, we frequently brush it off as an accident, or an exception. Whether it is or not, it should be acknowledged that this sort of thing does happen all the time. It is a cost that we, as a nation, ought to recognize when we engage in war.

When the Vietnam war was going on, under the worst possible circumstances with body counts, free fire zones, civilians that were actually soldiers and indiscriminate kill ratios, 75,000 Vietnamese died by the US's hands. 1,000,000 were killed by North Vietnam itself during the war in all sorts of gruesome ways. War will always have civilian casualties, but so do dictatorships, and at least there's hope for people in a war leading to liberation.

It should also be noted that we had secret deals with the kuwaitis, and they were stealing oil from iraq as well to fulfill their deal with us. So, we forced the situation through our own greed.

Yes, oil was being siphoned from slanted drilling, which is illegal. No, the US didn't force the situation, no-one thought Saddam was insane enough to attack Kuwait, including the CIA. Just as no-one though he'd bluff about having WMD's to look stronger militarily against Iran.

 

[jaxword]

Iran is out of compliance with UN treaties regarding nuclear weapons. Iran also has a deathwish against the United States and could easily hand such a weapon over to Hezbollah to be used against any number of countries: probably either Israel or the US.

The first point is not our responsibility.

As for your second, so...you're saying overthrowing the Iranian government is justified because they COULD do something bad and because they hate us?

Those are terribly weak arguments.

Funny thing is, I don't disagree that the Iranian government is a dangerous, theocratic threat. I am saying, however, your arguments are weak and masked in black/white mentality and phrasing.

For example: You speak of "spreading democracy" and touting democracy as this amazing gift from God that we must force everyone to agree to, whether they want it or not. Funny how that irony is lost.

But let's just say they do want it. If the majority wants something, that's the ultimate expression of democracy, right? You'd support that, yes?

 

[sonicmj1]

When the Vietnam war was going on, under the worst possible circumstances with body counts and indiscriminate kill ratios, 75,000 Vietnamese died by the US's hands. 1,000,000 were killed by North Vietnam itself in all sorts of gruesome ways. War will always have civilian casualties, but so do dictatorships, and at least there's hope for people in a war leading to liberation.

I'd be interested to know the source of those numbers. I'm kind of curious how they were calculated. What deaths are attributed to the North Vietnamese? How did they die? Were these deaths the result of a war that we lengthened for years due to our involvement, or the result of internal North Vietnamese politics, similar to other totalitarian purges?

Whatever the answer, it doesn't mean that going to war was a bad decision, by one metric or another. That's why I said the cost had to be acknowledged and understood. Going to war doesn't mean that only the bad guys die. It means that thousands and thousands of civilians will die, many of them directly by our hand. If we understand that, and are okay with that, then drop those bombs with a clear conscience, I guess. But even if you're doing it for an end that most would consider just, you're still killing enormous numbers of people that have done nothing to deserve such violence.

 

[Puck]

WHAT THE FUCK? Where was the rocket? Holy shit....

the most powerful and technologically advanced army in the world.

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

 

[TheHeretic]

For example: You speak of "spreading democracy" and touting democracy as this amazing gift from God that we must force everyone to agree to, whether they want it or not. Funny how that irony is lost.

But let's just say they do want it. If the majority wants something, that's the ultimate expression of democracy, right? You'd support that, yes?

Democracy by its definition has voting. A dictatorship can't be democratic.

As for war being the worst thing in the world, think about North Korea. How many civilians are starving to death because of economic sanctions. Lets be clear, under a dictatorship people are going to be killed. The Government will do it, the world will impose sanctions strangling the economy and hence the lower and middle classes.

Killing Kim Jong Il would be an act of mercy. North Korea is out of control and i'd absolutely support taking him out. I absolutely support international intervention and even though i'm an Australian, i'm proud of the US for stepping up to the plate when the useless Europeans refuse to do so. And yes, i'm also proud of the Australian soldiers in my family that served in Iraq, and I believe their cause was noble. I did in 2003 and I still do.

I'd be interested to know the source of those numbers. I'm kind of curious how they were calculated. What deaths are attributed to the North Vietnamese? How did they die? Were these deaths the result of a war that we lengthened for years due to our involvement, or the result of internal North Vietnamese politics, similar to other totalitarian purges?

The number's were off the top of my head, and weren't perfect. Here's from Wikipedia:

By the US

US forces killed an estimated 90,000 South Vietnamese civilians due to their extensive use of fire power (artilery, bombings, small weapons). Another 1,500 were killed in various massacres. [16] Again, these are deaths caused by US Forces apart from combat deaths inflicted on North Vietnames forces.

By North Vietnam

An estimated 95,000 civilians died in the communist re-education camps, another 500,000 were involved in forced labor projects, which killed 48,000 civilians. Another 100,000 were executed. Finally, 400,000 boat people died while trying to flee Vietnam. This is 643,000 killed during the consolidation of communist rule.[17] This consolidation ended around 1984, although boat people deaths occurred through 1988. A similar high death toll occurred in North Vietnam during 1950s when the Communists consolidated power in that geographic region.

You also have to calculate the massacres pre and post war, which are in the millions.

 

[Tf53]

Does anyone else find it slightly amusing that a user called TheHeretic is justifying the current warfare with arguments that could just as well be used to justify the crusades?

 

[jorma]

Ok so the people who defend this, what do you think the motivations were for the army to cover this up?

And more importantly: what do you think the motivations were for whoever in the US military who had access to this video and took a significant personal risk when he decided to give this video to wikileaks?

Why would anyone do that if what the video depicts is entirely kosher?

Noone's gonna bite on this?

 

[sonicmj1]

As for war being the worst thing in the world, think about North Korea. How many civilians are starving to death because of economic sanctions. Lets be clear, under a dictatorship people are going to be killed. The Government will do it, the world will impose sanctions strangling the economy and hence the lower and middle classes.

Is North Korea the one imposing those economic sanctions? Do they have to be under sanctions? Are they solely responsible for the deaths of their civilians? Or are we, to some degree, complicit in those deaths when we choose to maintain sanctions?

Here's a quoted exchange from a 60 Minutes interview with Madeline Albright in 1996 about sanctions in Iraq. (I kinda hate the description on that video, but that doesn't make the quote any less true)

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

Whether or not that number is perfectly accurate when related to the sanctions, we need to keep in mind that when sanctions are imposed, the nations who impose those sanctions are accepting a cost in civilian lives. If those sanctions were not present, at minimum, tens of thousands fewer people would have starved.

Kim Jong Il is a terrible, irresponsible dictator, dangerous to his people and to his neighbors. But we need to be aware of the death toll of the diplomacy we use, be it through war, sanctions, or otherwise. Perhaps that cost may be worth the result, and perhaps not. But there is always a cost.

 

[numble]

Lets be clear, under a dictatorship people are going to be killed. The Government will do it, the world will impose sanctions strangling the economy and hence the lower and middle classes.

The type of government doesn't necessarily automatically mean that the government will be killing people en masse. Taiwan for all accounts and purposes was under a one party dictatorship for 40 years or so (with Chiang Kai Shek and his son as de facto dictators), for instance. And while there were some minor incidents, the people probably found it preferable to some of the democracies in the world. Hong Kong and Singapore are practically dictatorships, but even though much of the people clamor for democracy, they wouldn't hesitate to say they'd rather be in their present situations compared to the strife and underdevelopment of some African democracies.

 

[robertsan21]

Are you serious? You think this is cartoons?

no I dont think this is cartoons, I just dont blame them for shooting at these people, if they have orders to shoot people that carry guns then they did what they where suppose to do, you have to remember that these soldiers did not have a recording of this event to look at over and over to determine if these guys carried guns or cameras, it sure looked to me at first glance that they carried guns instead of cameras.

soldiers have to make decisions really fast in situations like this, and unfortunately they made the wrong one.

Reporters should carry some sort of special vest or clothing before entering a warzone.

now regarding the van, I can see how it was unessesary, but an honest misstake, they might have acted like insurgents trying to gather weapons and helping their wounded..what do you know how insurgents act around their wounded... they might have seen stuff like this before and thought it was just like that time and took the decision to kill em off.

however they looked like civilians so... bad call by the soldier

 

[mAcOdIn]

Does anyone else find it slightly amusing that a user called TheHeretic is justifying the current warfare with arguments that could just as well be used to justify the crusades?

I'm assuming then that you think all of the Crusades were bad?

 

[iamaustrian]

.........absolutely support taking him out. I absolutely support international intervention and even though i'm an Australian, i'm proud of the US for stepping up to the plate when the useless Europeans refuse to do so. And yes, i'm also proud of the Australian soldiers in my family that served in Iraq, and I believe their cause was noble. I did in 2003 and I still do......

jesus christ, you are such an idiot

 

[TheHeretic]

Is North Korea the one imposing those economic sanctions? Do they have to be under sanctions? Are they solely responsible for the deaths of their civilians? Or are we, to some degree, complicit in those deaths when we choose to maintain sanctions?

Again, dovish opinions don't hold up this way. North Korea trades nuclear weapons to very dangerous countries, and is a dangerous country itself. I'm only pointing out that economic sanctions are just another kind of devastation to a people, and in Kim Jong Il's case it hasn't removed him as many would like.

Whether or not that number is perfectly accurate when related to the sanctions, we need to keep in mind that when sanctions are imposed, the nations who impose those sanctions are accepting a cost in civilian lives. If those sanctions were not present, at minimum, tens of thousands fewer people would have starved.

And if the sanctions were taken off North Korea would continue to arms deal, continue to threaten other countries, have a better ability to fire weapons into South Korea, and so on.

Kim Jong Il is a terrible, irresponsible dictator, dangerous to his people and to his neighbors. But we need to be aware of the death toll of the diplomacy we use, be it through war, sanctions, or otherwise. Perhaps that cost may be worth the result, and perhaps not. But there is always a cost.

Yes, and i'm stating in a generalist sense having wiped him out would have been more humane. The man has threatened to bomb Hawaii, hes nuts, and millions suffer under his dictatorship. The argument is do we do nothing, damage them economically, or damage them militarily. Doing nothing is irresponsible and threatens other nations, whereas doing something will lead to more deaths in the country.

The type of government doesn't necessarily automatically mean that the government will be killing people en masse. Taiwan for all accounts and purposes was under a one party dictatorship for 40 years or so (with Chiang Kai Shek and his son as de facto dictators), for instance. And while there were some minor incidents, the people probably found it preferable to some of the democracies in the world. Hong Kong and Singapore are practically dictatorships, but even though much of the people clamor for democracy, they wouldn't hesitate to say they'd rather be in their present situations compared to the strife and underdevelopment of some African democracies.

Sure. Not all dictatorships require military intervention, or any intervention at all.

 

[CiSTM]

Democracy by its definition has voting. A dictatorship can't be democratic.

As for war being the worst thing in the world, think about North Korea. How many civilians are starving to death because of economic sanctions. Lets be clear, under a dictatorship people are going to be killed. The Government will do it, the world will impose sanctions strangling the economy and hence the lower and middle classes.

Killing Kim Jong Il would be an act of mercy. North Korea is out of control and i'd absolutely support taking him out. I absolutely support international intervention and even though i'm an Australian, i'm proud of the US for stepping up to the plate when the useless Europeans refuse to do so. And yes, i'm also proud of the Australian soldiers in my family that served in Iraq, and I believe their cause was noble. I did in 2003 and I still do.



The number's were off the top of my head, and weren't perfect. Here's from Wikipedia:

By the US

US forces killed an estimated 90,000 South Vietnamese civilians due to their extensive use of fire power (artilery, bombings, small weapons). Another 1,500 were killed in various massacres. [16] Again, these are deaths caused by US Forces apart from combat deaths inflicted on North Vietnames forces.

By North Vietnam

An estimated 95,000 civilians died in the communist re-education camps, another 500,000 were involved in forced labor projects, which killed 48,000 civilians. Another 100,000 were executed. Finally, 400,000 boat people died while trying to flee Vietnam. This is 643,000 killed during the consolidation of communist rule.[17] This consolidation ended around 1984, although boat people deaths occurred through 1988. A similar high death toll occurred in North Vietnam during 1950s when the Communists consolidated power in that geographic region.

You also have to calculate the massacres pre and post war, which are in the millions.

We also need to count landmine and clusterbomb victims of US. Not in millions but should at least + 100,000 to US kill count. Then again I agree with you in many points. There has been many ruthless dictators in the history and they would never have been removed without outside help... Given that many times western countries are responsible of putting these dictators in their position in the first place.

Yes, and i'm stating in a generalist sense having wiped him out would have been more humane. The man has threatened to bomb Hawaii, hes nuts, and millions suffer under his dictatorship. The argument is do we do nothing, damage them economically, or damage them militarily. Doing nothing is irresponsible and threatens other nations, whereas doing something will lead to more deaths in the country.

N-korea situation is bit hard. N-korea's artillery alone could level many cities of S-korea within minutes and if they decide to use dirty bombs the civilian casulties would be in millions on S-koreas side. Also refugee amount that would go into china would shit up their economy even worse so China would probably have something to say and do in this possible N-korea war.

 

[goomba]

There is only one country in the middle east that has nuclear weapons.

This same country has also failed to comply with over 50 UN resolutions.

But they are white so we dont mind.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

The history of Wikileaks over at Wikipedia is amazing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikileaks

Whoever these guys are, the list of things they have exposed already is really impressive, and they've only been around 4 years.

 

[TheHeretic]

There is only one country in the middle east that has nuclear weapons.

This same country has also failed to comply with over 50 UN resolutions.

But they are white so we dont mind.

Pakistan, India?

 

[Sibylus]

War is war, but damn. I certainly hope this isn't standard procedure, because journalists basically became enemy combatants because objects in their hands couldn't be identified immediately. Gunning down the people who showed up just for associating with the dying, what's the rationale for that? I can sort of understand fucking up on the first one (especially if you're jumpy), but the second? I don't know, the guys in the chopper seemed really eager to start shooting at something and less eager to practice a little discretion.

Thank goodness for sites like Wikileaks, there are few ways to keep powerful entities honest nowadays. Having the US Military police itself seems to be working fiiiiiiiiiine.

 

[Jintor]

A thought that was floating through my head (and this was said by the WikiLeaks guy as well) was that it was really disturbingly similar to the sequence in CoD4 where you had control of the helicoptor gunship...

 

[Jay Sosa]

Reporters should carry some sort of special vest or clothing before entering a warzone.

Yeah, I was thinking the same, but wouldn't that make them pretty easy targets for kidnappings?

I know this may sound retarted and sci-fi, but isn't there a way to tag them with a chip or something?

I mean the tech of the US is supposedly so advanced that something like that shouldn't be a problem. Like when they look through their on board camera they can immeditaly identify them as civilists...

 

[sonicmj1]

The number's were off the top of my head, and weren't perfect. Here's from Wikipedia:

By the US

US forces killed an estimated 90,000 South Vietnamese civilians due to their extensive use of fire power (artilery, bombings, small weapons). Another 1,500 were killed in various massacres. [16] Again, these are deaths caused by US Forces apart from combat deaths inflicted on North Vietnames forces.

By North Vietnam

An estimated 95,000 civilians died in the communist re-education camps, another 500,000 were involved in forced labor projects, which killed 48,000 civilians. Another 100,000 were executed. Finally, 400,000 boat people died while trying to flee Vietnam. This is 643,000 killed during the consolidation of communist rule.[17] This consolidation ended around 1984, although boat people deaths occurred through 1988. A similar high death toll occurred in North Vietnam during 1950s when the Communists consolidated power in that geographic region.

You also have to calculate the massacres pre and post war, which are in the millions.

Thanks for the knowledge.

Wars are bad, and lead to many innocent deaths. Totalitarian dictatorships are also bad, and can lead to even more innocent deaths. These are both true statements.

I'm not sure we can easily engage in war with those dictatorships and replace them with peaceful democracies, though. Despite the shining example of World War II, I have difficulty recalling many successes in this field since that point. Perhaps Kosovo? If that's the case, we might buy temporary peace of mind, but ultimately we magnify an already terrible problem.

War comes with huge costs, in both money and lives. We need to be absolutely certain that those costs are worthwhile before we engage in something that is as morally dark as war.

 

[TheHeretic]

Thanks for the knowledge.

Wars are bad, and lead to many innocent deaths. Totalitarian dictatorships are also bad, and can lead to even more innocent deaths. These are both true statements.

I'm not sure we can easily engage in war with those dictatorships and replace them with peaceful democracies, though. Despite the shining example of World War II, I have difficulty recalling many successes in this field since that point. Perhaps Kosovo? If that's the case, we might buy temporary peace of mind, but ultimately we magnify an already terrible problem.

War comes with huge costs, in both money and lives. We need to be absolutely certain that those costs are worthwhile before we engage in something that is as morally dark as war.

No, we can't. Iraq is a blunder, and thats Rumsfeld's fault for being a pinhead and incompetent. I still maintain maintain intervention in Iraq was justified. You are right that failure is pretty common, but then it comes down to leaders. Men like Ghengis Khan and Hitlers military leaders (conquerers) were pretty brilliant, and did incredible things in terms of taking over countries.

With Iraq, once Saddam was removed a war between Sunni's and Shi'as was going to be unleashed on the country. Bush didn't know there were rival muslim sects in the country and Rumsfeld had no plan whatsoever to deal with the chaos, so the strong leadership and planning wasn't there.

Also though, leaving Iraq in its broken state would be devastating. Iran, Saudi Arabia or Turkey are likely to intervene for morally lesser reasons than us and many, many more will die once again. Its a messed up situation for sure.

 

[mAcOdIn]

Yeah, I was thinking the same, but wouldn't that make them pretty easy targets for kidnappings?

I know this may sound retarted and sci-fi, but isn't there a way to tag them with a chip or something?

I mean the tech of the US is supposedly so advanced that something like that shouldn't be a problem. Like when they look through their on board camera they can immeditaly identify them as civilists...

They don't even spend that kind of money on their own men, many times flares, strobes, reflective fabric or chemlights is all you have to distinguish yourself from the enemy.

There's also an inherent danger with developing a system of trust like that, if you do develop something that automatically makes you a friendly and it's misused then you're even worse off if you just started from the assumption that everyone was the bad guy.

 

[numble]

Reporters should carry some sort of special vest or clothing before entering a warzone.

And then every insurgent has a new disguise to buy.

 

[Always-honest]

it's horrible to watch.. those stupid jokes..

 

[Funky Papa]

Pakistan, India?

Hey, useless twit, learn some geography before trying to be a smart ass.

 

[goomba]

Also though, leaving Iraq in its broken state would be devastating. Iran, Saudi Arabia or Turkey are likely to intervene for morally lesser reasons than us and many, many more will die once again. Its a messed up situation for sure.

:lol :lol :lol

Did you forget the Iraq invasion broke international law?

 

[TheHeretic]

:lol :lol :lol

Did you forget the Iraq invasion broke international law?

What does that have to do with morality? What do you think Iran will do to its main rivals civillians?

Hey, useless twit, learn some geography before trying to be a smart ass.

Yeah, South Asia. Pakistan still borders Afghanistan so we are splitting hairs here. Regardless the reason we allow Israel and India to have nuclear weapons has nothing to do with them being white, as Indians aren't white.

 

[mAcOdIn]

Serious question, what the fuck is international law? The way most people seem to want it applied is pretty schizophrenic. I mean, Israel violates it and you want them to do something about it, Iran violates it and you want no part of it and it's not our problem, the US violates it and you want something done about it, North Korea violates it and it's not our businesses, what the hell kind of international legal system is that? It's a fucking joke. All this says to me is International Law only should apply to countries who'd willingly follow it and not retaliate with violence.

 

[goomba]

What does that have to do with morality? What do you think Iran will do to its main rivals civillians?

Wait... so your saying invading a country illegally under false pretenses is moral?.

Whats a civillian ?

Yeah, South Asia. Pakistan still borders Afghanistan so we are splitting hairs here. Regardless the reason we allow Israel and India to have nuclear weapons has nothing to do with them being white, as Indians aren't white.

Oh so its because they didn't sign the NPT?

 

[Sirius]

All humanity is lost when fear reigns in war. This is unbelievable.

 

[TheHeretic]

Wait... so your saying invading a country illegally under false pretenses is moral?.

False pretenses according to who? Russian, US and UK intelligence pointed to Saddam making these weapons. Why? Because he wanted the world to, to increase the perceived strength of his country. It was an intelligence failure but there were other reasons to invade Iraq. And i'm not defending Cheney and Rumsfeld, who took many countries into the war and borked it.

Oh so its because they didn't sign the NPT?

Because they are democracies that countries like the US trusts. Geopolitics is complicated but if you have the right friends you can get away with plenty.

 

[goomba]

Serious question, what the fuck is international law? The way most people seem to want it applied is pretty schizophrenic. I mean, Israel violates it and you want them to do something about it, Iran violates it and you want no part of it and it's not our problem, the US violates it and you want something done about it, North Korea violates it and it's not our businesses, what the hell kind of international legal system is that? It's a fucking joke. All this says to me is International Law only should apply to countries who'd willingly follow it and not retaliate with violence.

The problem with your analysis is that you have the examples backwards. Iran and North Korea do not get away with anything, yet Israel and the US get away with everything.

 

[Xater]

I just watched this and even if they didn't relize those cameras were not guns ther eis still so much wrong. The way he lingers von Sadeem (?) crawling just hoping that hew can shoot him and then shooting the people that want to help. Since when is that acceptable behaviour ever?

The whole thing is disgusting.

 

[mAcOdIn]

The problem with your analysis is that you have the examples backwards. Iran and North Korea do not get away with anything, yet Israel and the US get away with everything.

Sort of, I'll give you that no one sanctions us but then I'd raise you that if sanctions are the worlds enforcement that it's a non issue anyways, that's essentially saying don't do the crime if you can't pay the price, in cash.

Wait... so your saying invading a country illegally under false pretenses is moral?.

Uh, law is morally ambiguous. I'd love to hear the morality argument against jay walking, wearing masks in public, having anal sex with your wife, bringing a pocket knife onboard a plane, having a knife over a certain size, ripping the tag off a bed, running a stop sign at 3am in the morning with 100 foot visibility in either direction and no traffic, being intoxicated at a bar, ripping a DVD you already own onto your computer to use as a media server, going to a blocked website(like Wikileaks in China), blah, blah, blah. Granted some laws are based on morality, like not killing, not raping, but that doesn't mean law itself has a moral bias.

Edit: Did you change this before I hit "quote?" Coulda's swore it read something along the lines as breaking international law is moral, if I'm wrong I'm sorry. I'll let my response stay as I do think it's true, but invading under false pretenses is not good and I didn't think I was replying to that question, lol, I've been up too late.

 

[goomba]

False pretenses according to who? Russian, US and UK intelligence pointed to Saddam making these weapons. Why? Because he wanted the world to, to increase the perceived strength of his country. It was an intelligence failure but there were other reasons to invade Iraq. And i'm not defending Cheney and Rumsfeld, who took many countries into the war and borked it.



Because they are democracies that countries like the US trusts. Geopolitics is complicated but if you have the right friends you can get away with plenty.

At least you can see the hypocrisy.

 

[Jintor]

Serious question, what the fuck is international law? The way most people seem to want it applied is pretty schizophrenic. I mean, Israel violates it and you want them to do something about it, Iran violates it and you want no part of it and it's not our problem, the US violates it and you want something done about it, North Korea violates it and it's not our businesses, what the hell kind of international legal system is that? It's a fucking joke. All this says to me is International Law only should apply to countries who'd willingly follow it and not retaliate with violence.

That's actually about right. International Law can't (yet) violate sovereignty, so it only applies to those who think of Int. Law as valid. Even then, it's near impossible to enforce.

 

[goomba]

Sort of, I'll give you that no one sanctions us but then I'd raise you that if sanctions are the worlds enforcement that it's a non issue anyways, that's essentially saying don't do the crime if you can't pay the price, in cash.

Uh, law is morally ambiguous. I'd love to hear the morality argument against jay walking, wearing masks in public, having anal sex with your wife, bringing a pocket knife onboard a plane, having a knife over a certain size, ripping the tag off a bed, running a stop sign at 3am in the morning with 100 foot visibility in either direction and no traffic, being intoxicated at a bar, ripping a DVD you already own onto your computer to use as a media server, going to a blocked website(like Wikileaks in China), blah, blah, blah. Granted some laws are based on morality, like not killing, not raping, but that doesn't mean law itself has a moral bias.

Edit: Did you change this before I hit "quote?" Coulda's swore it read something along the lines as breaking international law is moral, if I'm wrong I'm sorry. I'll let my response stay as I do think it's true, but invading under false pretenses is not good and I didn't think I was replying to that question, lol, I've been up too late.

Your right about law being morally ambiguous but I would agree with your exception of not killing, but that kinda goes in parallel with invasion doesn't it?

No I haven't changed anything but TheHeretic was implying the invasion was moral because he stated other countries may interfere in Iraq for less moral reasons.

 

[TheHeretic]

No I haven't changed anything but TheHeretic was implying the invasion was moral because he stated other countries may interfere in Iraq for less moral reasons.

No, I stated if the US leaves whilst Iraq is broken the population will suffer even more, and Iraq will become a terrorist safe haven without a military or police force to combat them.

 

[hukasmokincaterpillar]

Cntrl+F - occupation

Cntrl+F - war

...

We're not at war.

 

[mAcOdIn]

Your right about law being morally ambiguous but I would agree with your exception of not killing, but that kinda goes in parallel with invasion doesn't it?

No I haven't changed anything but TheHeretic was implying the invasion was moral because he stated other countries may interfere in Iraq for less moral reasons.

Then my mind just totally misread that post, I saw it and I was like "is that what I replied to??"


I honestly think in regards to Iraq that all reasonable scenarios were equally immoral or moral to be honest. I do not believe leaving Saddam Hussein in power after the first war was exactly moral in the first place, nor do I think allowing him to break the imposed rules placed upon him as a condition of losing very "moral" either, the second invasion was also immoral, once it was decided to invade the complete undereffort put forth in my opinion was equally immoral, I don't think not invading and leaving those ass holes in power would have been moral either, nor would it have been any more moral to continue pressuring Saddam if he did seemingly comply with the UN resolutions no matter how much we hated him, it was just lose lose all around.

That's why I think if you ever do get into a war fucking end it cleanly*, don't leave loose ends in some vain attempt to save a few lives now because all you do is cause more people to suffer in the long run. Which is exactly what we're setting up in Iraq and Afghanistan right now, meaning all these deaths will have been in vain and someone's bound to have to deal with it yet again sooner or later.

* by this I mean decisively.

 

[Tf53]

I'm assuming then that you think all of the Crusades were bad?

I think imposing ideologies on people "just because" is wrong.

 

[TheHeretic]

I think imposing ideologies on people "just because" is wrong.

Tell it to the Iranian protesters.

 

[sweetvar26]

I can't believe this shit, OMG.


Conversation -

"I think they just drove over a body"

"Really?"

"Haha Yeah, looked like it"

"Well they're dead, so..."


Wow, really? REALLY? I just can't believe this, really sad.

 

[hukasmokincaterpillar]

Did the guys playing Call of Duty check whether or not the insurgents were carrying any gingum?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKfFpi0qLgM

 

[mAcOdIn]

I think imposing ideologies on people "just because" is wrong.

If only that was what all the Crusades were about, they were just as much a reason to eliminate enemies of the church as they were a legitimate counter action against the invasion of Islam. In all seriousness, if Islam came after Christianity and all those nations were Christian first then how exactly did they become Islamic? It wasn't through all peace and sunshine, of course, neither was Christianity's spread either, I'm just saying, had the Crusades not happened there's a very good chance you'd be speaking Arabic right now.

I'm not going to go as far and say we'd all be stoning homosexuals because there are some fairly moderate Islamic countries, but I do think it a blessing that Christianity did hold the line, so to speak, because it has become even more moderate than Islam. Of course, 500 years from now Christianity might have mutated again into something more violent and oppressive and Islam might be the more moderate religion and they may look back at history thinking why did we ever try and combat Islam. And also, I guess it'd be a lame duck argument because if we were all Muslim that'd be what we're used to anyways and we'd consider it closer to the norm instead of the more moderate version of Christianity most of us live with.

 

[ItAintEasyBeinCheesy]

I can't believe this shit, OMG.


Conversation -

"I think they just drove over a body"

"Really?"

"Haha Yeah, looked like it"

"Well they're dead, so..."


Wow, really? REALLY? I just can't believe this, really sad.

Dont forget the "oh it may have been an illus."

Cut that, cant have people not thinking everyones a savage.

 

[iamaustrian]

If only that was what all the Crusades were about, they were just as much a reason to eliminate enemies of the church as they were a legitimate counter action against the invasion of Islam. In all seriousness, if Islam came after Christianity and all those nations were Christian first then how exactly did they become Islamic? It wasn't through all peace and sunshine, of course, neither was Christianity's spread either, I'm just saying, had the Crusades not happened there's a very good chance you'd be speaking Arabic right now.

I'm not going to go as far and say we'd all be stoning homosexuals because there are some fairly moderate Islamic countries, but I do think it a blessing that Christianity did hold the line, so to speak, because it has become even more moderate than Islam. Of course, 500 years from now Christianity might have mutated again into something more violent and oppressive and Islam might be the more moderate religion and they may look back at history thinking why did we ever try and combat Islam. And also, I guess it'd be a lame duck argument because if we were all Muslim that'd be what we're used to anyways and we'd consider it closer to the norm instead of the more moderate version of Christianity most of us live with.

you can't be serious. right? right?