Does "ordering actions which result in the deaths of innocent Iraqis" - Page 5

canis582 · #41 12-31-2006, 08:44 AM

" I remember arguing with friends that I could not conceive that a president/prime minister would lie to its constituency in something as serious as a motive for a war."

Cue history lessons: Spanish American War, WW1, Vietnam, intervention in central america etc.

ShakeZula06 · #42 12-31-2006, 09:29 AM

Tomdemaine has pwned this thread.

Money2Burn · #43 12-31-2006, 12:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't despise Bush, I despise his policies and the war profiteers he represents. Do you understand how I can seperate the two?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure I do, and it's great you do.

Money2Burn · #44 12-31-2006, 01:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Require the death penalty? Lets be consistent please.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you believe any of America's presidents during WW2 should have been tried and put to death?

You could counter, as someone in this thread mentioned, that Bush lied about the reasons for going to war. Bush and other proponets for the war gave numerous reasons for invading Iraq, most of which were not lies, but since we did not find WMDs people that did not like Bush jumped all over it and called him a liar. The fact that he lied about the WMDs, in my opinion, is highly debateable. I believe Bush actually thought Saddam either had them or was actively pursuing getting them, people that despise Bush think otherwise. They claim that he knew without a shadow of a doubt, Saddam did not have WMDs and chose to tell the American people that he did anyway. That would hvae been a lie. However a great deal of evidence suggests this is not true. That being said, this goes back to the poker example of getting it all in with AA preflop only to lose to 72o, after someone told you that you will make money if you do that. Are they a liar? No.

I got a little off topic there. My answer to you is no. Let's say I am a city planner, we decide that a bridge should be built to make it easier to access two parts of our city from each other. The plan gets accepted and the bridge is built. A short period after the bridge is built, it collapses killing hundreds who were on the bridge and many more who were unlucky enough to be fishing underneath the bridge when it collapsed. Should any of us planners or anyone involved in ordering the builiding of the bridge require the death penalty?

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay- before the invasion of Iraq, I KNEW all the reasons were false. Didn't think, KNEW. At the time I was a 22 year old University student. This was clear to anyone who spent more than 30 min researching. Anyone who says that the Bush administration made an easy mistake is either in denial or very, very dumb. To believe this is an honest mistake is to be a SUCKER.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, you were wrong when you KNEW all the reasons were false. Most people I've talked to who supported or still support the war knew Bush had alterior motives for going to Iraq, so you can go ahead and pat yourself on the back all you want, but coming to that "revelation" is nothing special. Second, no mistake can be called easy when the situation is so difficult.

Money2Burn · #45 12-31-2006, 01:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you are kidding yourself if you can honestly say that you would be able to sit in Bush's shoes for a week and make better decisions than he has.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can honestly say that yes, I would have.

[/ QUOTE ]

I highly doubt this.

tomdemaine · #46 12-31-2006, 01:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Tomdemaine has pwned this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you. However, I have not yet received a consistent unhypocritical answer to the question I posed in the OP. Except from Borodog, and I feel he may not have been 100% serious.

Money2Burn · #47 12-31-2006, 01:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

By this logic every president that has entered into a war is guilty,

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I'm not the one advocating hanging Saddam. All I'm saying is don't pretend that your not a massive hypocrite if you think Saddam should be punished but others shouldn't for doing the very same thing!

[/ QUOTE ]

Bush has not done the same thing as Saddam though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actions not words. Knowingly issued orders for an offensive which meant innocent people would die.

[/ QUOTE ]

Innocent people die in any war, and you have no way of knowing how many innocent people were saved because of the war.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have no way of knowing how many innocent people were saved when Saddam had the subversives killed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most people killed in the Iraq conflict were not a threat to anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Last night when I was participating in this thread, I was on my way to being drunk, but now that I've reread this I understand what you're saying.

I still think the answer is no. Let's say there is the hypothetical situation that when we went into Iraq Saddam really did have or was close to having WMDs and he planned to use them against the U.S. or somewhere in Europe. Also lets say that there was not alterior motives behind the justification for going in. In that scenerio, I think the answer is a resounding no. Am I still being hypocritical?

tomdemaine · #48 12-31-2006, 02:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

By this logic every president that has entered into a war is guilty,

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I'm not the one advocating hanging Saddam. All I'm saying is don't pretend that your not a massive hypocrite if you think Saddam should be punished but others shouldn't for doing the very same thing!

[/ QUOTE ]

Bush has not done the same thing as Saddam though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actions not words. Knowingly issued orders for an offensive which meant innocent people would die.

[/ QUOTE ]

Innocent people die in any war, and you have no way of knowing how many innocent people were saved because of the war.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have no way of knowing how many innocent people were saved when Saddam had the subversives killed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most people killed in the Iraq conflict were not a threat to anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Last night when I was participating in this thread, I was on my way to being drunk, but now that I've reread this I understand what you're saying.

I still think the answer is no. Let's say there is the hypothetical situation that when we went into Iraq Saddam really did have or was close to having WMDs and he planned to use them against the U.S. or somewhere in Europe. Also lets say that there was not alterior motives behind the justification for going in. In that scenerio, I think the answer is a resounding no. Am I still being hypocritical?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a fallacy seeing as it is never possible to know someones true intentions however even if it were possible, you must (to avoid being hypocritical) then believe in prior restraint in all circumstances? Or prove why international warcrimes are fundamentally different from bank robberies etc.

Money2Burn · #49 12-31-2006, 03:04 PM

I still feel that there are scenerio's where the answer is no. I believe Hitler, had he been captured, should have been killed, but I don't believe any the leaders of the Allied Forces deserve the same fate. Perhaps, had history turned out different and Germany had won I would be saying the opposite, I don't know. If thinking this makes me a hypocrite I'm ok with that.

MidGe · #50 12-31-2006, 11:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
" I remember arguing with friends that I could not conceive that a president/prime minister would lie to its constituency in something as serious as a motive for a war."

Cue history lessons: Spanish American War, WW1, Vietnam, intervention in central america etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I agree, and many others. Lesson learned [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]