28 replies to this topic

[Evil]

I'm not sure how many of you guys caught this thing on TV, but I just got the chance to see the video of the inside of the building when a suicide bomber drove a low tech truck bomb into it. The footage is as disturbing as it is horrible. There's nothing terribly graphic but the explosion is extremely abrupt.

Apparently during a UN press conference, the building was attacked, and the footage I've seen is actually from that press conference. The sound of the explosion itself will make a lump in your throat.

So far there's 15 dead, that number is likely to rise.

So what do you guys think? I'm not sure whether the attack was just a testament to the entire area's turmoil. Or it was a delibrate attack on a soft target to make it appear that our troops can't protect everyone. Maybe it's just to dishearten those involved with the peace process.

I guess killing Muslims is okay if you're a Muslim with a mission. Maybe they don't know it, maybe they don't care, but they're killing their own people. I just don't understand that entire region of the world.

Okay let's keep this conversation light please, no two mile long posts! (MERLINKSI!)

For more info I found a good article or two:
Baghdad UN Explosion
Truck Bomb Rocks Iraqi UN

[Wads15]

Guh. I've heard it blew out windows a mile away. That freaked me out. I didn't see anything but the bloodstained people.

I hate Shrub (code name). He'd better not do anymore shit in Iraq. I'd say:

Shrub - "Bring it on"

It hath been brought.

[Evil]

Thanks for that cryptic message.

[The Infinite Shindig]

Thanks for that cryptic message.

Evil, I believe by, "Shrub," he means Bush. At least that would mirror a farily well known book that was written about a year ago.

[Evil]

Yea, I figured. I doubt that Bush's "Bring it on" rhetoric really "brought this on". I believe it was going to happen in some way like this, without connection to Bush's chatter. This is the new kind of warfare we're going to see for the next 50 years guys. This is our generation's cold war. Soft targets consisting of innocent people, being attacked and mercilessly killed for some "holy cause" or due to some "anti-Americanism".

It's a shame that it's come to this but now that I think about it, the best way to describe the entire situation, really is as I said before, our generation's cold war. We're going to be dealing with rogue nations and whatnot for a while. It's shame since the USSR was one entity, it was more easy to combat, now it's like we've got ourselves all the baddies in the world to take on. But they're all over the place.

Kinda like Where's Waldo with AKs and a bloody sales tag.

[merlinski]

Yea, I figured. I doubt that Bush's "Bring it on" rhetoric really "brought this on". I believe it was going to happen in some way like this, without connection to Bush's chatter. This is the new kind of warfare we're going to see for the next 50 years guys. This is our generation's cold war. Soft targets consisting of innocent people, being attacked and mercilessly killed for some "holy cause" or due to some "anti-Americanism".

It's a shame that it's come to this but now that I think about it, the best way to describe the entire situation, really is as I said before, our generation's cold war. We're going to be dealing with rogue nations and whatnot for a while. It's shame since the USSR was one entity, it was more easy to combat, now it's like we've got ourselves all the baddies in the world to take on. But they're all over the place.

Kinda like Where's Waldo with AKs and a bloody sales tag.

I could reply to that with a mile-long post, but I'll try to keep it short.

The cold war was cold because there were no direct engagements. It was dominated by MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction. This is why there were no direct engagements. MAD does not exist for nor frighten those who we are now attempting to control. Death is acceptable to them, as long as the enemy dies as well. We cannot threaten them as a whole, like we were able to do with the Soviet Union. We are at war with a mindset. The enemy is not even the people who perpetrate the bombings, it is the cause.

Ask yourself a question. Would you kill 1 person if you knew it would save 20? Would you kill 5 people if you knew it would save 500? Would you kill 19 people if you knew it would save 3000? (those numbers aren't an accident).

Now, would you kill 6 million people if you knew it would save 6 billion?

The problem here isn't that the new "enemy" has different ideas concerning what is right and wrong. All humans see the unjustified taking of a human life as wrong. It's just where, whether consciously or subconciously, we see it as justified that is different. Our "enemy" sees killing us as justified, and the only way we can stop it from happening is to convince them that it isn't.

[Evil]

By "Cold War", I was implying that it's what we're going to be faced with in comparison to what our parents were faced with. I wasn't talking nukes and non-combat chatter. Sorry about that.

I'm confused, when you say:
Ask yourself a question. Would you kill 1 person if you knew it would save 20? Would you kill 5 people if you knew it would save 500? Would you kill 19 people if you knew it would save 3000? (those numbers aren't an accident).

How are you saving any number of these people by killing them? I don't get how they look at it like that, perhaps you can explain or elaborate on it so that I may understand.

[merlinski]

How are you saving any number of these people by killing them? I don't get how they look at it like that, perhaps you can explain or elaborate on it so that I may understand.

My point is that the "enemy" in this new war is not different from us at all. Everyone (or at least almost everyone) has a point where they believe that killing is justified, and the only difference between us and the terrorists is where we draw the line of justification.

[Evil]

Merlinski, out of curiousity, do you believe the terrorists are right? I don't care if they think they're right, but do you find fault in what they're doing?

[Mantis]

Hear hear Merl!

[WebbZter]

I think his point is that these people think killing Americans is justified in the same way that most Americans think killing terrorists is justified. It is a duty to them. Killing them won't change their minds, especially since these people put their cause above their lives (therefore we have suicide bombings). Killing Terrorist A won't make his buddy, Terrorist B, think that killing Americans is bad. We're fighting an idea. Right now we are fighting the idea by incapacitating the people who hold onto these ideas and the terrorists are doing the exact same thing. They are incapacitating the people who hold ideas that conflict with their own.

[merlinski]

Merlinski, out of curiousity, do you believe the terrorists are right? I don't care if they think they're right, but do you find fault in what they're doing?

I don't think that it's right, but I also don't think that the people who perpetrate the acts are our enemies. I don't feel that the people in the crowds shouting "death to America" are any more or less evil than the american soldiers who follow orders. I believe that the only evil or wrong thing that we are fighting is the idea that bombing people is the best way to communicate feelings about a country. If they want to hate us, I have no problem with that. If there is a man standing in front of a TV camera saying that the only way to express that hate is by bombing civilians, I believe that single person is evil. We are not fighting "terrorists", for a terrorist is every or any human being who's beliefs about justified killing are different from our own. What we have to fight is the idea that murder is an acceptable form of political statement.

Which leads to one of my core beliefs, that in order to convince an entire culture that bombs are not acceptable political statements, we must not use them as political statements ourselves. Imagine if a middle-eastern man came up to you, told you that bombing his people was wrong, then shot you. What would you think? That's how it appears to them, except instead of middle-eastern, that man is american.

War is a necessary evil, for sometimes we must defend ourselves, or those who are too weak to defend themselves. However, war is not the correct means of combating an ideal with which we disagree.

[Evil]

1) I don't think that it's right, but I also don't think that the people who perpetrate the acts are our enemies.  

2) I don't feel that the people in the crowds shouting "death to America" are any more or less evil than the american soldiers who follow orders.  

3) I believe that the only evil or wrong thing that we are fighting is the idea that bombing people is the best way to communicate feelings about a country.  

4) If they want to hate us, I have no problem with that.

5) If there is a man standing in front of a TV camera saying that the only way to express that hate is by bombing civilians, I believe that single person is evil.

6) We are not fighting "terrorists", for a terrorist is every or any human being who's beliefs about justified killing are different from our own.  

7) What we have to fight is the idea that murder is an acceptable form of political statement.

8) Which leads to one of my core beliefs, that in order to convince an entire culture that bombs are not acceptable political statements, we must not use them as political statements ourselves.  

9) War is a necessary evil, for sometimes we must defend ourselves, or those who are too weak to defend themselves.  However, war is not the correct means of combating an ideal with which we disagree.

Merlinski I'm not attacking anything you have to say, I'm actually being pretty open minded about this conversation (go me). Just hear me out just the same, thanks.

1) What are they if they aren't our enemies? In these most recent attacks they (terrorists) are killing innocent people who have perpetrated no acts at all against them. They either are bound to a different faith (Israel/Palestine), or are trying their best to push Iraq forward after what has happened these past few months (Baghdad).

2) I don't agree but that's fine.

3) Well there's a couple things I could say, so I'll just say them all and you can call me stupid. We spent 12 years either negotiating, talking with, or pussy footing with Saddam Hussein. If 12 years isn't enough time to get the point across well then I don't know how much more we should offer to any country. I don't care who they are.

The reason this war has become such a beacon of scorn and angst (here in the USA at least) is directely related to the Democratic party's inability to really formulate an anti-Bush campaign after 911. He handled it well. That was more than a kick in the pants for team Donkee. No it's more a matter of mud throwing and tantrums.

I'd also like to quickly touch upon the fact that all these wannabe righteous champions of morality who now speak against the war on Iraq, at least many of the left, let it happen. They were against it. Then for it. And now their against it as 2004 gets closer. I think it's connected. Maybe I'm just that stupid.

(Anyone else notice that in 1998, when Clinton decided to drop some bombs on Baghdad, that no one cried "Murderer" or "It's all for oil". And more interesting than that, is that when we had troops in Bosnia, President Clinton (a member of the left) decided that wgat was best for the mission in Bosnia was to prolong the length of time that American troops would stay.

So he started with 6 months, then said, we're going to need an additional year. No one in the media uttered the word "Liar" and newspapers weren't all over the president like this. It's wierd. Maybe I'm missing something. Maybe I'm stupid.)

We can also assuredly say, that America is hated in the middle east as is, so the war against Saddam Hussein probably won't phase the already heated pot much more. As soon as we supported the creation and stabilization of Israel in the 1940s, we became the enemy of the entire region. In other words, I doubt we're losing much face.

(Oh and does anyone else find it funny that Saddam killed more Muslims than anyone, but we're the bad guys?)

4) Yea, same here. It doesn't bother me either way.

5) Go Merl. Agreed.

6) Excellent point but I find it void when I see busses and cafes delibrately attacked by suicide bombers on the news. There is no rationale, or excuse, religious or otherwise, that can justify the killing of 4 year old children, toddlers, and mothers.

7) Yes, war is the ugliest of things without question. As is fighting and the essence of aggression itself.

8) At some point however that becomes appeasement. Taking one on the chin is taking one on the chin, but one must stand up for the innocent and the abused when it comes time. The "I won't hit back in hopes that you'll cut it out" strategy doesn't sit well with me personally. But that's just me.

9) It's a shame that sometimes we have to give war a chance. But I see no other choice in this situation. The 3,000 Americans who lost their lives on 9/11 were'nt men and women in uniform. They were secretaries and bussiness men who went to work to support their families. They weren't throwing hand grenades or unloading clips. They were stapling forms and organizing folders.

Just because a person belongs to something adverse to our own ideals, as I believe you have said, doesn't mean they deserve such vile aggression. But when people who have done nothing are those that fall. Are those whose families are left behind, we must act.

To let innocense (sp?) die is to sacrifice ourselves, and our ideals as Americans. To fight back is of course, instinctive. And in this case, I feel it justified. This is something that will not go away just because we stop throwing punches. America is an enemy of many individuals. It's difficult to believe it's come to this point... But if we don't act are we not just appeasing?

((AHHH! This got really long in a hurry. I'm sorry.))

[WebbZter]

I agree with you, Merlinski. Bombs don't make very good political statements and neither does hypocrisy. I have a question though. What do you think we should be doing instead of dropping bombs on them? If we stop the attacks we have no guarantee that terrorists will do the same, and we all know what happens when you give a mouse a cookie.

[merlinski]

This won't be in order of your numbers, it'll be in order of what comes to mind first

6) There is no rationale for killing 4 year old children. But terrorists don't see their targets as "a mother and her child". They see it as "The western infidels". They also see "western infidels" as an acceptable sacrifice for the Jihad. Just as the American F-15E Pilot sees the building not as "next door to a family's house", but as "a governmental target". And "a governmental target" is an acceptable target in the war against terror. We have to fight the mindset, otherwise there is an unlimited supply of people willing to blow themselves up. There is no excuse, and we must convince people that it doesn't make sense. We must not make the mistake, however, of assuming that someone who can be convinced to do that is inherently inable of believing anything else.

3) I'm not sure how this became a question of domestic politics, as my comment about bombs as a political statement was targeted at terrorism. I'll respond to the domestic issues. At the time of the war, I was greatly dissapointed with the Democratic party for their apparent inability to field any coherent opposition. Anyone who had done so then would have taken a risk, but had they attacked the WMD justification for war, they would have been proven successful. Policy making and politics have become much too closely linked.

Bush didn't handle 9/11 particularly better or worse than any other president could have done. Do you honestly think that the government under Bush did anything that the government under Gore wouldn't have? The only reason that it appears as if the Democrats got their ass kicked is because they didn't try to formulate a case against him. All Bush did was make a few patriotic speeches, nothing particularly good or bad. There was nothing to attack. My personal objections to the war certainly had nothing to do with the fact that I couldn't find a reason to hate Bush.

When Clinton dropped bombs in Baghdad, no one cried "its all for oil" because he never invaded the country. He couldn't have gotten oil from the operation.

The reason we're more of an enemy than Saddam was because Iraq under Saddam wasn't as much of a threat to the region as an overly aggressive US is.

-------------------------

Ok, now on to the "what do we do now" angle.

First off, I think pre-emptive invasions of sovereign nations are possibly the worst things the US can do to stop the spread of terrorism. They promote instability and tension. We want order.

Second, I think we need to wipe the slate clean in terms of foreign aide. We give too much money to countries that only give us equivocal cooperation in terms of stopping anti-american ideals. We need state cooperation if we are going to take steps such as de-islamization of education and promotion of western ideals. I don't suggest that we don't give any aide, I suggest that we give aide in exchange for cooperation and make sure that the distribution of aide is extremely conspicuous, so that those who are affected have no doubt that it was America who bestowed favors upon them.

One of the things that has already been asked is "what do we do instead of dropping bombs on them?" Has anyone ever considered "nothing at the moment" as an answer? Now, you might say that would be inviting or allowing the terrorists to take action. Open your eyes! We can't continuously invade other countries, so doing absolutely nothing is what the US is already doing.

The one active measure that I would support would be a great deal more in the way of intelligence and covert operations. We can't target terrorists, because they are just regular people with different ideals. But we can actively track and hunt the leaders and infrastructure that supports terrorism. I don't think the US pays nearly enough attention to the importance of intelligence, and I think that if we are to disrupt any major terrorist plans, we must give much more funding to the CIA, NSA, FBI, and other major intelligence agencies.

[Talio]

Okay let's keep this conversation light please, no two mile long posts!

This rule is gone.

[Evil]

6)  There is no rationale for killing 4 year old children.  But terrorists don't see their targets as "a mother and her child".  They see it as "The western infidels".  They also see "western infidels" as an acceptable sacrifice for the Jihad.  Just as the American F-15E Pilot sees the building not as "next door to a family's house", but as "a governmental target".

I don't care how they see it, there is a difference between a cafe and an intelligence complex. Their is a difference between personnel and people living their lives. I understand that they are "fanatics" or whatever you want to call it, so they're not particularly open to any reasons or logic. This is a jihad, or a holy conflict for them. They want virgins in heaven and glory. A little girl who will never walk again doesn't come into the equation.

3)  I'm not sure how this became a question of domestic politics, as my comment about bombs as a political statement was targeted at terrorism.  I'll respond to the domestic issues.  At the time of the war, I was greatly dissapointed with the Democratic party for their apparent inability to field any coherent opposition.  Anyone who had done so then would have taken a risk, but had they attacked the WMD justification for war, they would have been proven successful.  Policy making and politics have become much too closely linked.

Well I can't say yes or no to the WMD justification just yet. I'd like to give that a little more time, as I believe we'll find something. I could be wrong which I am aware of. The only thing I can say for now is well we can't find Saddam, does that mean he never existed?

Bush didn't handle 9/11 particularly better or worse than any other president could have done.  Do you honestly think that the government under Bush did anything that the government under Gore wouldn't have?  The only reason that it appears as if the Democrats got their ass kicked is because they didn't try to formulate a case against him.  All Bush did was make a few patriotic speeches, nothing particularly good or bad.  There was nothing to attack.  My personal objections to the war certainly had nothing to do with the fact that I couldn't find a reason to hate Bush.

Seeing that they are from two opposing parties, I'm pretty sure that their would have been some extremely small, meaningless differences. Bush did make some moving speeches which I think added to a dimension to him as a person, it brought out some emotion and added some depth to a character who was pretty much labeled an idiot by so many. He came out of 9/11 with I think, 80% approval ratings.

I'm not saying he did anything amazing, but because of 9/11, Bush and the American people were bonded in some special way. I'm not saying Gore couldn't have done it, but I find him to be fake for the most part. So I doubt I personally would be as affected by his words.

The reason we're more of an enemy than Saddam was because Iraq under Saddam wasn't as much of a threat to the region as an overly aggressive US is.

Yea I think this "No BS" doctrine of GW has gotten under the skin of a lot of these wannabe badasses over there. It's not like we're talking the talking but not walking the walk anymore. I'm just glad that not many of the leaders over their aren't sleeping well like they used to. A lot of them have a lot to answer for. I hope they get what the deserve. Whether it's us doing the job, or someone else.

First off, I think pre-emptive invasions of sovereign nations are possibly the worst things the US can do to stop the spread of terrorism.  They promote instability and tension.  We want order.

Yes.

Second, I think we need to wipe the slate clean in terms of foreign aide.  We give too much money to countries that only give us equivocal cooperation in terms of stopping anti-american ideals.  We need state cooperation if we are going to take steps such as de-islamization of education and promotion of western ideals.  I don't suggest that we don't give any aide, I suggest that we give aide in exchange for cooperation and make sure that the distribution of aide is extremely conspicuous, so that those who are affected have no doubt that it was America who bestowed favors upon them.

Bingo. I think you and I should run the country.

One of the things that has already been asked is "what do we do instead of dropping bombs on them?"  Has anyone ever considered "nothing at the moment" as an answer?  Now, you might say that would be inviting or allowing the terrorists to take action.  Open your eyes!  We can't continuously invade other countries, so doing absolutely nothing is what the US is already doing.

Yes well doing nothing can be costly as well. I don't know which is a better risk to take. Doing nothing now, and paying for it later. Or doing something now, and nothing later. It's circular.

The one active measure that I would support would be a great deal more in the way of intelligence and covert operations.  We can't target terrorists, because they are just regular people with different ideals.  But we can actively track and hunt the leaders and infrastructure that supports terrorism.  I don't think the US pays nearly enough attention to the importance of intelligence, and I think that if we are to disrupt any major terrorist plans, we must give much more funding to the CIA, NSA, FBI, and other major intelligence agencies.

Yahtzee. Merl gets points for this one.

[merlinski]

I don't care how they see it, there is a difference between a cafe and an intelligence complex. Their is a difference between personnel and people living their lives. I understand that they are "fanatics" or whatever you want to call it, so they're not particularly open to any reasons or logic. This is a jihad, or a holy conflict for them. They want virgins in heaven and glory. A little girl who will never walk again doesn't come into the equation.

My point is that we killed children, our bombs made it so little girls will never walk again. We called it "colateral damage". To the terrorists, the people are just "collateral damage" of their war. Sure, they are wrong to do so, and by our standards are more evil than the american pilot. But those are our standards. I guess my main point is that, if you take away indoctrination, the people who commit terrorist acts are no different than you or me. There are no fundamental differences between an American and a Palestinian. The only difference is in the belief of what is right and wrong, what ends justify the means of killing someone, and that belief is the result of how they were brought up.

Well I can't say yes or no to the WMD justification just yet. I'd like to give that a little more time, as I believe we'll find something. I could be wrong which I am aware of. The only thing I can say for now is well we can't find Saddam, does that mean he never existed?

Most defenders of the WMD argument want to give it a little more time, even though we've now spent more time looking for the WMD's than we gave the UN. As I recall, before the war the majority of supporters were saying "it's been this long and you haven't found anything." Well, the US hasn't done any better.

I'm not saying he did anything amazing, but because of 9/11, Bush and the American people were bonded in some special way. I'm not saying Gore couldn't have done it, but I find him to be fake for the most part. So I doubt I personally would be as affected by his words.

I personally find Gore to be a much more honest and genuine person than Bush. He's absolutely hilarious when he's not talking politics (SNL, Futurama), and he really is a genuine war hero. Bush, on the other hand, deserted when he was a member of the Air National Guard and avoided fighting in Vietnam when he should have. Bush also seems more hypocritical, especially considering how what he said during the 2000 campaign contradicts his actions now.

Yea I think this "No BS" doctrine of GW has gotten under the skin of a lot of these wannabe badasses over there. It's not like we're talking the talking but not walking the walk anymore. I'm just glad that not many of the leaders over their aren't sleeping well like they used to. A lot of them have a lot to answer for. I hope they get what the deserve. Whether it's us doing the job, or someone else.

I don't object to keeping the region honest, so to speak, through use of the US influence. I feel that the Iraq war didn't help the situation because it alienated a large number of countries whose assistance would be instrumental in bringing peace to the region. We can't continue to shun the advice of Germany, China, Russia, and sometimes France (I don't actually like them). We can't appear as a cavalier nation willing to do whatever we want, damn the consequences. We need to be diplomatic, even in our use of force.

Bingo. I think you and I should run the country.

Damn straight. We have a nice back-and-forth balance going.

[Evil]

(I had a great, concise, even somewhat witty post underway and was almost finished when my power went out... Here's my best attempt to do it all over again)

About little girls... I don't care what anyone has to say, the intentional killing of innocent children and others like them is perhaps the most vile and horrid acts that is ever to be commited. They are children. They don't hold any adverse ideals or virtues. They haven't had the chance to live yet, how do they deserve to die?

Bombing an intelligence complex is different than a bus or restaurant. Personnel are different than mothers and toddlers. The intentional murder of those who are innocent is what we're facing now. I don't care if they think they're right, that's fine, but they are wrong as I see it. Hopefully you share my distaste Merlinski.

Because if I shot someone tomorrow, and thought it was right, would it be right? No.

As for WMDs, it's hard to swallow that we haven't found them yet but Clinton himself has stated that upon his leaving office he knew of substantial amounts of nerve agents and chemical weapons which were unaccounted for. If Saddam doesn't have WMDs, I'll cut my hair. Because he's used them before, and if I can find the newswire article which I was reading this past weekend, Saddam even authorized the use of chemical weapons upon our invasion.

Gore strikes me as terribly robotic and boring. There's no depth to him as a person. It's him, and a suit, and that's about it. I'm not saying he could have done a better or worse job than George Dub, I'm just saying I just can't connect with him or what he believes in. I listen to everything people have to say, but I do lean to the right, it's just because my beliefs (for the most part) fall in line with the republican party.

(THAT DOESN'T MAKE ME A BAD GUY! )

About the UN and us "shunning" the advice of France, Germany, Russia, and China... Let's take a quick look at those four.

France: Lost it's superpower status on a whim, arguably after the second world war.

Germany: Well, after losing two world wars, who's going to be a superpower?

Russia: Thought it would be best if they went Commie. Joke's on them. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, they were left in the dust and rubble of what was a superpower.

China: After Mr. Mao Tzetung (it's been spelt a million different ways!) turned China into a communist nation in the 1940s, they have all and all lost their status as a meaningful sovereign state. The economy over their isn't even worth mentioning. The government over their, is communist, so they've for the most part sacrificed what voice they could have. And if you think about it, they are now limiting the number of children that familes can have to 1. That's right, that's not a typo. 1. Now with forced abortions over in China, tell me, what kind of "voice of morality" are they?

All these countries are has beens. They used to be terribly powerful in their own right. But, things went wrong, and things went right for us. These four nations don't like the idea of removing from power a man who is responsible for the death of some 300,000 people. Yea, three hundred thousand. So be it, the coalition has 40+ willing nations who are trying their best to move the process along and do what they can.

It's hard to argue, those nations had relatively valid arguments, but at the same time, so did we.

As for Bush in 2000, I understand what you mean and what you're saying, but at the same time, September 2001 changed the rules of the game in many ways.

And a quick update, the death toll has now reached 23 in Baghdad from the bombing.

[merlinski]

Because if I shot someone tomorrow, and thought it was right, would it be right? No.

You haven't answered the question of whether you believe the people who become terrorists are inherently different than you or me.

Gore strikes me as terribly robotic and boring.

It's really too bad that he's gotten that image, because if you've seen him on SNL, you'd realize how hilarious he is. Matt Groening and David X. Cohen, the creators of futurama, said that he was absolutely great in person (they had him do his own voice on futurama). I try not to judge people's personalities based on their style of speaking.

As for WMDs, it's hard to swallow that we haven't found them yet but Clinton himself has stated that upon his leaving office he knew of substantial amounts of nerve agents and chemical weapons which were unaccounted for. If Saddam doesn't have WMDs, I'll cut my hair. Because he's used them before, and if I can find the newswire article which I was reading this past weekend, Saddam even authorized the use of chemical weapons upon our invasion.

My point is not that he doesn't have WMD's (although I believe he doesn't). My point is that anyone who supported the war and says "we need more time" is being hypocritical, because they were the ones who said "the UN has had enough time". If they exist and it takes this long for us to find them, doesn't that mean that we never gave the UN enough time to complete a search?

All these countries are has beens. They used to be terribly powerful in their own right. But, things went wrong, and things went right for us. These four nations don't like the idea of removing from power a man who is responsible for the death of some 300,000 people. Yea, three hundred thousand. So be it, the coalition has 40+ willing nations who are trying their best to move the process along and do what they can.

Not one of those nations liked Saddam Hussein. The reason they opposed the war was because they thought that the WMD argument was bullshit. And it's looking like it was. Saddam was evil, and if that was the reason we went to war then Bush should have stated it. He didn't use it as his main argument, and that tells me that he himself didn't believe that was the real reason.

Just because a country isn't as powerful as us doesn't mean that we should disregard their advice. Despite all the flag-waving, the US needs the rest of the world. We need Germany, Russia, France, and especially China. We are not even close to being self-sufficient. If we keep ignoring the rest of the world, they are going to turn on us and start ignoring us, start trying to balance our power with their own. Right now, we have a large amount of influence over what other countries do. If they decide to stop listening to us, and to contradict us, and they do it as a group, we're screwed.

[rawray7]

there was a great article on the bombing in the LA Times today. one of the writers correspondants interviewed a bunch of iraqis, and the main consensus is that most iraqis view the UN as a puppet of the US, and therefore they feel that attacking the UN is attacking the US. that's not to far from the truth, seeing as how we can veto anything we wish with our power and get many things passed. also, the iraqis said that their view of this puppetry was only verified by the fact that the UN sent in no aid to the iraqis and the fact that everyday more soldiers come into the country to tell them what to do. on the other hand, it also made the point that they realize that US occupation can't stop immediately, because it would cause turmail.

i'll search for a link to article, it's pretty good.

[Evil]

Well Julie, good thing we didn't have public television like we do today, eh?! Haha.

Yea I believe there is a difference Merl, because a murderer is different than you or myself no doubt.

As for us "ignoring" the world... We shrugged off the UN security council because of how right and justified we felt we were. If people want to stand in the way of that, that's fine. But as I said before, the coalition is a 40+ nation unit, if France, Germany, China, and Russia want to say anything at all they can feel free.

And real quick I'll touch on me being a hypocrite. Saddam had himself 12 years of the UN and all the good intentions in the world. That's a long long time. And if that's not long enough, I don't know what to tell you or anyone else.

It's been 5 months, and if I was Saddam and my world was going to be rocked by "shock and awe", I'm pretty sure I'd want to cover up my tracks like nobody's business. And hey, good news, we bagged #5, "Chemical Ali" who is responsible for what MSNBC claims as "100,000" (one hundred thousand) deaths including the attack on the Kurds in 1988.

Maybe he's got something to share. Anyway, just to say what I really mean. We started March 19, 2003. That was 5 months ago. Iraq is what, roughly the size of Cali? There's no question that there's a whole lot of places to hide whatever you wanted.

I mean Saddam hid tens of thousands of people in the desert after they were slaughtered, you know what I'm talking about, the mass graves. I doubt he couldn't hide a half dozen SCUDs under the sand with chemical agents.

We'll see how things play out.

(This would be longer, but I'm tired and just got home from work)

Thanks, Merl, feel free to IM me anytime if you wanna bullshit or talk politics and whatnot.

[merlinski]

Yea I believe there is a difference Merl, because a murderer is different than you or myself no doubt.

Which leads back to one of the first things I said. Would you kill 1 person to save 20? Say there's a terrorist on a bus, he stands up in the front, has a detonator in his hand and TNT strapped to him, and you're standing right behind him with a 9mm pistol. Do you shoot him, or let him blow up the bus and all 20 people on it?

And real quick I'll touch on me being a hypocrite. Saddam had himself 12 years of the UN and all the good intentions in the world. That's a long long time. And if that's not long enough, I don't know what to tell you or anyone else.

It's been 5 months, and if I was Saddam and my world was going to be rocked by "shock and awe", I'm pretty sure I'd want to cover up my tracks like nobody's business. And hey, good news, we bagged #5, "Chemical Ali" who is responsible for what MSNBC claims as "100,000" (one hundred thousand) deaths including the attack on the Kurds in 1988.

Maybe he's got something to share. Anyway, just to say what I really mean. We started March 19, 2003. That was 5 months ago. Iraq is what, roughly the size of Cali? There's no question that there's a whole lot of places to hide whatever you wanted.

I mean Saddam hid tens of thousands of people in the desert after they were slaughtered, you know what I'm talking about, the mass graves. I doubt he couldn't hide a half dozen SCUDs under the sand with chemical agents.

My argument about hypocrisy has nothing to do with 12 years of good intentions from the UN. It revolves around the fact that we gave the UN Weapons Inspectors in Iraq 110 days before telling them that they had taken too long and if they hadn't already found something, they never would. It's been more than 150 days, and we haven't found shit. So either 110 days is enough to find something if it exists, or it isn't. It's that simple. If 110 days is enough, then there obviously isn't any WMD in Iraq. If 110 days isn't enough, then we didn't give the UN inspectors enough time to do their job.

[Evil]

You're damn right I'd put a round in his face.

But I don't get how what they're doing is saving anyone.

I'm lost.

[merlinski]

You're damn right I'd put a round in his face.

But I don't get how what they're doing is saving anyone.

I'm lost.

The point of the example is that what you consider murder depends on your set of morals. There is no universal set of morals. Therefore, the reason that a murderer or terrorist is no different than you or me is that they don't think what they're doing is wrong. Some people may consider shooting the terrorist murder. Does that mean that you believe you are a murderer? No. Just because certain people believe that what they are doing is murder, does that make the terrorists believe that they are murderers? No.

Now, this is why there is not a difference between a terrorist and you or me. We both do things that are justified by our own set of morals, even though others may see those actions as immoral.

If you say that no matter what they believe, commiting terrorist acts is still wrong, you define them as murderers based on your own set of morals. You judge someone's actions by a set of morals other than your own. By the same principle, another person could define you as a murderer for killing a terrorist if they substitute their own set of morals for yours. They would be judging your actions by their set of morals, and would judge you as a murderer.

The point of all this is that the distinction between two people (ie. you or me and a terrorist) depends on the point of view of the person commenting on it. And since there are quite a few different points of view, you can't universally define a person as "a murderer" or "not a murderer". Becaues of this, all people have the potential to be labeled as any kind of person. Does this change what they are in their own mind? No. A terrorist isn't different than you or me because they don't see what they are doing as wrong. Just as you and me don't see shooting the terrorist as wrong. What I have tried to explain is why you can't say "well, what they are doing is obviously wrong". Why not? Because you can't judge the way a person thinks by scrutinizing their actions with your set of morals. A person judges their actions by their own set of morals, that governs the way they think. So if two people (ie. you or me and a terrorist) both see their actions as life-taking but not immoral, where is the difference?

I'm not suggesting that anything that someone sees as moral should automatically be taken as moral. The need for social order means that we can't let everyone be goverened by their own mind. In a democratic society the governing set of morals depends on a consesus of the people. But to look at a fundamental difference between two people, you can't look at them in the context of US society, you have to look at them in the context of their own minds. And in the context of the mind of a terrorist, terrorism is justified. Just as killing a terrorist is justified in the context of your mind.

(BTW, I'd shoot the terrorist too)