Read This!! Why Iraq War Is Wrong. - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-08-2004, 06:38 AM   #16
Refugee
 
FullonEdge2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,314
Local Time: 09:18 AM
I know, it is quite a blanket statement. And I'm not trying to depict anti-war people as being illogical. But sometimes you have to look at the reasons behind your statements.

Klaus'es statement is a good example. That said, I don't think many Democrats would argue this. The "liberal" teacher for this class isn't offended that he's basically calling himself illogical, he just doesn't know why anyone would think like a Republican. That's all.
__________________

__________________
FullonEdge2 is offline  
Old 10-08-2004, 06:46 AM   #17
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 05:18 AM
Classical utilitarianism actually has nothing to do with emotion. Utilitarianism came out of Britain during the Enlightenment, formed largely by the political thinkers and philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.

Both Bentham and Mill, despite some differences between them, both believed that the calculus behind ethical decisions should be based on seeking the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Both Mill and Bentham, if you ever take the time to actually read their work, were incredibly rigorous and logical philosophers whose work is still studied and argued today. I don't think that Democrats or Republicans have franchise on logical or illogical decisions, on utilitarianism or contractarianism (Rousseau, "social contract," if this means anything to anyone). While utilitarianism is sometimes associated with liberalism, classical liberalism has little do with the Democratic Party as we know it today (just as classical conservatism has little do with today's Republicans). Utilitarianism can be just as well used to justify decisions made by conservatives as liberals.

I was a philosophy major in college, so you can't b.s. philosophy in this forum.
__________________

__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 10-08-2004, 08:36 AM   #18
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 02:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
May I just say that "Saddam Hussein was a bad leader" does not even begin to account for the crimes of the regime. In barbarity, not magnitude, in barbarity they were on par with the Nazi's and the Soviet Union. A bad leader would be someone who runs an economy into the ground or messes up social policy, Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator responsible for the deaths of millions. To brush aside this element with a token statement of dislike is a very easy way to dismiss intervention as a pointless imperial excercise that only brings death upon people who were living peaceful and prosperous lives.

I find the concept of leaving a regime like that in power when the opportunity to remove it with substantially less casualties presents itself the right choice - regardless of WMD or Terror Links - and I stood by it before the war and after. How many innocent lives are worth paying to uphold the status quo of having a dictator murdering tens of thousands and the international community at best sitting on their hands and at worst being complicit in the crimes?

Never
Ever
Forget

http://massgraves.info/
Visit this site and look over it well, war is horror - sometimes peace is too.

Arite I agree, Saddam did kill thousands of his own people. However, before we went to war, Bush never stated that this was the reason, he said we went because of WMD's and terror links. So we can't have a president who lied to us before going to war, regardless of what he lied about. I mean the capture of Saddam Hussein was a good thing. But was it worth going into Iraq at the time? NO! Because right now the two biggest threats to the United States are terrorists and nuclear weapons, NEITHER of which Saddam had. So what was more important was to attack those countries that did have nukes and terror links (North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan maybe). Because the terrorists and nukes and these countries DO threaten the U.S. unlike Iraq. So ask yourself this: What is more important? To attack a country that has a dictatorship, OR to take out a country that can cause harm to millions of Americans? I'd go with the latter.

(Each nuke in North Korea can destroy big cities in the west such as L.A., San Francisco, or Seattle. If attacked by a Nuke, the city will instantly vaporize and everyone in a surrounding 40 mile radius will be killed, let alone the damage a nuke can cause to the earth's atmosphere. North Korea has 8 nuclear weapons, and wants more)
__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 10-08-2004, 08:55 AM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:18 PM
Not thousands, hundreds of thousands pushing into millions, and many more would be added to that list if Saddam had been left in power for another decade or two. I am not talking about Bush's reasons for the war; but you say that it was the total wrong thing to do, and as such you must accept that there is a severe cost to inaction. As must I accept that there are costs to taking action. There is no magic wand happy fun-time solution; either way people die and the situation is unstable - the important part is managing competing risks and ensuring long term security.

N-Korea and Iran are working to get nuclear weapons the existence is by no means guaranteed (yet), Saudi Arabia doesn't and Pakistan certainly does. Al Qaeda wants to topple the regimes in place in SA and Pakistan and replace them with Islamist ones - so these governments share a common foe, Iran is facing the fact that its younger generation demands reform and N-Korea is motivated by pure self preservation, Nuclear weapons guarantee that nobody would make a move against them.

After the fact we know that Saddam was using the oil for food program to prop up his regime. The UN was directly involved in this scam where 11 billion dollars would up in the hands of Saddam. Directly assisting this proud effort were some of the very respectable members of the security council. The entire WMD issue was a diversion from the real game, Saddam being shit scared of Iran - he poured so much effort into bluffing the Iranians he convinced the entire world that he was hiding WMD, he still retained the expertise and the programs - production could be restarted if he gave the order and that was the danger. If inspections continued and they found nothing then sanctions would have to be removed. The regime would be free to restart its weapons programs (the intention which his chief WMD scientist made clear) and the entire situation would be a whole lot worse - that would be the course of the UN solution; would you agree with it.

Iraq under Saddam was not a haven for Islamist terrorists however right now in the country you have these groups fighting. A second front has been established in the War on Terror which not only eliminated the persistent threat posed by Iraq but also enables the elimination of the Islamist ideology by providing an alternative to those suffering under despotism. Realpolitik at its best, truly.


Secondly, do you advocate now or would you support in future preemptive war with North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Iran?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-08-2004, 11:54 AM   #20
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 20,952
Local Time: 10:18 AM
1) UN inspectors said he did not have WMD's (you know, what US/British claimed in front of the world in Security Council)

2) David Kay said the same and resigned

3) Just now, I read the person who was in charge after Kay left gave out a report that, again, says, there were no WMDs (since 1991, even) and I think also dismissed any Iraq ties with Al Qaeda

4) I read Rumsfeld said a few days ago Iraq had no connections with Al Qaeda or WMDs

5) Any Iraq connection with 9/11 was dismissed by Bush himself

I'd say that pretty much blows away any "arguments" on Iraq being a part of anti-terrorism war.
__________________
U2girl is offline  
Old 10-08-2004, 12:14 PM   #21
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2girl
I'd say that pretty much blows away any "arguments" on Iraq being a part of anti-terrorism war.
Do an ounce of research and discover how much open support Iraq gave to Hammas for the terrorist bombings in Israel.

Take a look at the current influx of militants into Iraq. Do you honestly believe that if these individuals were not fighting in Iraq, they would be living peacefully somewhere else??
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-08-2004, 04:00 PM   #22
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 03:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Take a look at the current influx of militants into Iraq. Do you honestly believe that if these individuals were not fighting in Iraq, they would be living peacefully somewhere else??
So because they came to us, is now being used as an excuse.

The same could be said for anywhere in the Middle East, we could occupy any place there and militants would be coming into fight.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 10-08-2004, 04:02 PM   #23
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 01:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Do an ounce of research and discover how much open support Iraq gave to Hammas for the terrorist bombings in Israel.

This is such a load of crap!
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 10-09-2004, 12:00 PM   #24
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 20,952
Local Time: 10:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Do an ounce of research and discover how much open support Iraq gave to Hammas for the terrorist bombings in Israel.

Take a look at the current influx of militants into Iraq. Do you honestly believe that if these individuals were not fighting in Iraq, they would be living peacefully somewhere else??
Believe it or not, I know Iraq supported Palestinians. I also know US supports Israel's policies towards Palestine which aren't exactly helping that situation either - and don't tell me civilian casualties ONLY happened to Israelis in that conflict.

(This had nothing to do with US' rationale for going to Iraq, btw. Also, do not equal what Palestinians or Chechens or people from N. Ireland are doing with what Al Qaeda is doing.) Besides, US has such a long history of supporting harsh regimes they really should not be the judges on that.

Bush promised a side by side peaceful life for Israel and Palestine - and what happened? Violence didn't stop, and there is a huge wall being built.

Do you honestly believe the militants in Iraq would be there even if US didn't come in? As far as I know, there was none of that before.
__________________
U2girl is offline  
Old 10-09-2004, 12:40 PM   #25
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 04:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2girl

Do you honestly believe the militants in Iraq would be there even if US didn't come in? As far as I know, there was none of that before.
I don't and it was one of my arguments that for the United States this was posisitve because it created a front in a frontless war.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-09-2004, 12:56 PM   #26
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 20,952
Local Time: 10:18 AM
Actually, it's the kind of war that can have a front anywhere - and I don't see how opening up a new trouble spot in possibly the most tense area of the world is good.
__________________
U2girl is offline  
Old 10-09-2004, 12:59 PM   #27
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 04:18 AM
I broke a promise to myself. Peace
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-09-2004, 04:05 PM   #28
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2girl
Believe it or not, I know Iraq supported Palestinians. I also know US supports Israel's policies towards Palestine which aren't exactly helping that situation either - and don't tell me civilian casualties ONLY happened to Israelis in that conflict.
Are you suggesting that Hamas represents "acceptable" terror? Is there any justification for Saddam's support of Hamas?

If sadam's support of Hamas was done in the open, do you even ponder what was being done by Saddam in the shadows???
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-09-2004, 04:12 PM   #29
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 04:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2girl


(This had nothing to do with US' rationale for going to Iraq, btw. Also, do not equal what Palestinians or Chechens or people from N. Ireland are doing with what Al Qaeda is doing.) Besides, US has such a long history of supporting harsh regimes they really should not be the judges on that.

Seriously, you hate the US, admit it.

If you are implying that the US never mentioned the link to Hamas before the war, then you clearly have not been paying attention.

As for long history's of (Insert WOrds HEre) ____________ I guess we can exclude most of the world from being the judges of everything.

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-09-2004, 04:32 PM   #30
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 01:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2girl


Believe it or not, I know Iraq supported Palestinians. I also know US supports Israel's policies towards Palestine which aren't exactly helping that situation either - and don't tell me civilian casualties ONLY happened to Israelis in that conflict.

(This had nothing to do with US' rationale for going to Iraq, btw. Also, do not equal what Palestinians or Chechens or people from N. Ireland are doing with what Al Qaeda is doing.) Besides, US has such a long history of supporting harsh regimes they really should not be the judges on that.

Bush promised a side by side peaceful life for Israel and Palestine - and what happened? Violence didn't stop, and there is a huge wall being built.

Do you honestly believe the militants in Iraq would be there even if US didn't come in? As far as I know, there was none of that before.

Many are in the US are satisfied with US policy in the MidEast, and many are not.

I agree it is going the wrong direction.

It is only a matter of time before Israel is in serious trouble.

Bushes policies are dangerous for Israel long term interest.

U2girl you are right
the American people would not have supported Iraq War and paid the price we have only as a surrogate for Israel.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com