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

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly, that's why you have pwned [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly, that's why you have pwned [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Since the question has been answered several times as a resounding "no", what else is there more to say? Do you want a summary of the repsonses.

SCJ in action.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly, that's why you have pwned [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Since the question has been answered several times as a resounding "no", what else is there more to say? Do you want a summary of the repsonses.

SCJ in action.

[/ QUOTE ]
A consistent unhypocritical answer to the question posed in the OP.

[troymclur]

Funny you bring this up, as i had an argument with my sister about this very issue. It started with her equating street gangs with the military, then explaining how she felt that Bush and his actions with respect to the war is equivalent to straight murder.

I can see why one would think that, but i just don't feel that it can be so neatly surmised. The world turns with and without decisions being made. People live and die through action of office and inaction, so it's more a matter of how you will throw your weight around with the goal of saving more lives than would be saved through inaction.

The obvious difference is that Saddam ordered deaths, while Bush ordered actions with partially resulted in deaths. Take the government out of the equation and the answer becomes much easier, i think. Meaning, if you gathered some like minded people and set out to help a nearby village build utilities and a means of defence against a tyrannical third party, should you be culpable when the third party gets pissy about not having the village under their boot?

That was worded poorly, but basically, if you help somebody on their feet, but through that action cause another to attack or kill them, are you guilty of murder? I think it's a pretty clear no.

[Bobbo539]

[ 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 ]

So you know all the reasons were false?

lets first examine the justifications (which were directly outlined by Bush before the war);
1- To remove Saddam for crimes against his own people and depriving his own people their rights
2- To punish Saddam for violation of 12 UN resolutions
3- To rid Iraq of WMD's
4- To eliminate Saddam and Iraq's ties to greater terrorist networks

Thus, you blieve that;
1- Saddam did not kill hundreds of thousands of people
2- Saddam did not break 12 UN resolutions
3- Saddam did not or was not persuing WMD's, which may have or may not have been the case, but you would strongly disagree with British intelligence who I think has spent more than "30 minuets researching" the topic
4- That Iraq had no ties to larger terror networks

....

and you are calling other people "suckers"?

[Bobbo539]

I think to the OP, the issue here is intentions. Anybody familiar with law is familiar with intentions, and justice is administered to people based upon their intentions.

Saddam murdered hundreds of thousands of people, he even rose to power in the Ba'athist party by assasinating people, and his intentions were explicit and clear; murder.

The ordering of the Iraq war had many intentions, but the intentions (aka: goals) were not to inflict the killing of innocent people, rather fight in a war where innocent people would die as a result.

[Bobbo539]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly, that's why you have pwned [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

he seems to have gone away quietly

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Anybody familiar with law is familiar with intentions, and justice is administered to people based upon their intentions.

[/ QUOTE ]
O RLY?

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Should not Saddam have been tried in a world court?

[/ QUOTE ]

For actions occurring wholly inside Iraq, involving only Iraqi nationals? Why? Do you feel that the Iraqi judiciary was incompetent to handle the matter?

[/ QUOTE ]Why was Slobodan Milosevic hauled to the International Court for crimes committed inside Yugoslavia?

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]

Bush ... has the hardest job in the world. He has had to make decisions that most of us couldn't imagine being able to make. 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. It's so easy for us to sit from the safety of our computers and say that Bush is a liar and a murderer and a moron in retrospect. I know I wouldn't be able to make one tenth of the decisions he has had to, therefore I feel that it would be wrong for me to condem Bush the way so many of you do so easily.

[/ QUOTE ]Do you realize what you're saying? What you're saying is correct only under at least one of these conditions:

1. The job of the U.S. president is an impossible job (but someone's got to do it).

2. George W Bush is the best qualified person to hold the job of U.S. president.

3. One is allowed to criticize how other people do their jobs only when one is able to replace those people at their jobs.

4. One should never criticize the U.S. president.

So which is it ?


Mickey Brausch