Page 4 of 5
#121
Quote by IRISH_PUNK13
I'm pretty sure you got that one mixed up.

I also don't think France surrendering is the best option here.


Well, from what I know about the whole conflict, America has had alot of troops stationed in Afghanistan, something the Soviets did back in the 80's, though for different reasons. Hell, the CIA supposedly trained the Taliban back then, but I don't trust such facts enough untill acknowledged by the CIA itself.

And again, from what I know, Sarkozy was all too eager to lead the NATO charge in the Libyan revolt, hence France's inclusion
#122
Quote by Todd Hart
We have killed nowhere near as many civilians in the middle East than Saddam alone did. To claim that we have is to be utterly ignorant and utterly, contemptibly blasé about mass genocide.

The point is we've killed a shit ton of civilians (upwards of 100,000) invading Iraq and we'll kill a shit ton more if we invade Syria and that's something to strongly consider if you're gonna be all 'humanitarian' about wanting to go to war.

Also, the gas attacks you're talking took place years before our invasion and we did nothing so don't even act like we marched in there to "stop genocide" lol. The rationale we were given is he had weapons that threatened us.
Quote by EpiExplorer
I swear this guy in particular writes for the telegraph or some shit.

Quote by Fat Lard
My name can actually be traced back to as early as the 1990s, it means "fuck off data miner"
#123
Quote by Todd Hart
We have killed nowhere near as many civilians in the middle East as Saddam alone did. To claim that we have is to be utterly ignorant and utterly, contemptibly blasé about mass genocide.


According to what it says on the wiki page for the Iraq war casualties (under the civilian section) more that 100k people were killed in Iraq. That's also just counting the most recent Iraq war, not the one before that. It also says that Hussein is responsible for roughly 200k civilian deaths in his genocide. Sure, going based off of the last war alone, there weren't as many civilian casualties as Saddam did, but it's still not something I would use to support a military intervention.
Quote by L2112Lif
I put a ton of my capital into SW Airlines... The next day, THE NEXT DAY these nutters fly into the WTC. What the hell? Apparently no one wanted to fly anymore, and I was like "What gives? God damnit Osama, let me win a fuggin' game!"
#124
I'm not exactly an expert, but there must surely be other ways to solve this, it can't only be to either invade or ignore it, right?
#125
Quote by Lord_Doku
Well, from what I know about the whole conflict, America has had alot of troops stationed in Afghanistan, something the Soviets did back in the 80's, though for different reasons. Hell, the CIA supposedly trained the Taliban back then, but I don't trust such facts enough untill acknowledged by the CIA itself.

And again, from what I know, Sarkozy was all too eager to lead the NATO charge in the Libyan revolt, hence France's inclusion


I know, but from the way you worded it, it suggests that the US was fighting for the Soviets.

lulz
Quote by L2112Lif
I put a ton of my capital into SW Airlines... The next day, THE NEXT DAY these nutters fly into the WTC. What the hell? Apparently no one wanted to fly anymore, and I was like "What gives? God damnit Osama, let me win a fuggin' game!"
#126
Quote by ErikLensherr
The point is we've killed a shit ton of civilians (upwards of 100,000) invading Iraq and we'll kill a shit ton more if we invade Syria and that's something to strongly consider if you're gonna be all 'humanitarian' about wanting to go to war.


Source? And even if we have killed 100,000 that's still less than half of what Saddam Hussein achieved in the Al-Anfal campaign, which was explicit genocide.

Also, the gas attacks you're talking took place years before our invasion and we did nothing so don't even act like we marched in there to "stop genocide" lol. The rationale we were given is he had weapons that threatened us.


It's irrelevant that we went there to stop a threat to us, we removed a dictator who was gassing and torturing Kurds, Assyrians, Mandeans etc by the thousand and who posed a serious threat to his neighboring countries as well as us. He'd decimated populations, he decimated almost the entirety of the Mesopotamian marshes (widely seen as the greatest act of ecological destruction ever committed by man). To even compare the casualties caused by the NATO intervention to Saddam's crimes as though they were somehow equivalent is disgusting.

Again, if the conservative government in the UK started stockpiling chemical weapons to unleash on its population, or the populations of Ireland, Scotland, Wales or France, you'd would want something to be done.

Quote by IRISH_PUNK13
According to what it says on the wiki page for the Iraq war casualties (under the civilian section) more that 100k people were killed in Iraq.


Unless it is saying that it's 100,000 deaths caused by NATO then you can guarantee a huge majority of the civilians were killed by the Taliban and other insurgent groups. The whole rationale of the Taliban, and to a slightly lesser extent Al-Qaeda, was that it's perfectly acceptable (and certainly acted out) to kill the Shia Muslims for perceived apostasy, and thus the majority of their efforts were poured into killing fellow Muslims, not the NATO and UN forces.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
Last edited by Todd Hart at Dec 6, 2012,
#128
Quote by IRISH_PUNK13
I know, but from the way you worded it, it suggests that the US was fighting for the Soviets.

lulz


Hehe, I didn't even realise that. Another learning moment
#129
Quote by Todd Hart
Unless it is saying that it's 100,000 deaths caused by NATO then you can guarantee a huge majority of the civilians were killed by the Taliban and other insurgent groups. The whole rationale of the Taliban, and to a slightly lesser extent Al-Qaeda, was that it's perfectly acceptable (and certainly acted out) to kill the Shia Muslims for perceived apostasy, and thus the majority of their efforts were poured into killing fellow Muslims, not the NATO and UN forces.


I'm not going to make any assumptions either way on that. It doesn't specify who killed who, so unless you can provide something that supports what you're saying I won't be guessing who killed who during the invasion.

Anyway, I'm off for a bit. Gonna play gta or something.
Quote by L2112Lif
I put a ton of my capital into SW Airlines... The next day, THE NEXT DAY these nutters fly into the WTC. What the hell? Apparently no one wanted to fly anymore, and I was like "What gives? God damnit Osama, let me win a fuggin' game!"
#130
Quote by IRISH_PUNK13
I'm not going to make any assumptions either way on that. It doesn't specify who killed who, so unless you can provide something that supports what you're saying I won't be guessing who killed who during the invasion.

Anyway, I'm off for a bit. Gonna play gta or something.


You're not going to assume that a force that is explicitly trying to kill civilians is more likely to have killed civilians than an interventionalist/peace-keeping force with no interest in killing civilians?

Erm, okay.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
#131
Quote by flxjhnlrssn
I'm not exactly an expert, but there must surely be other ways to solve this, it can't only be to either invade or ignore it, right?

We could just give the rebels weapons, but that comes with its own problems since once you've given people weapons it's hard to track where those weapons go and they could easily end up in unsavory hands.

There's an article in the New York Times just this morning about that happening in Libya.

Quote by Todd Hart
Source? And even if we have killed 100,000 that's still less than half of what Saddam Hussein achieved in the Al-Anfal campaign, which was explicit genocide.
iraqbodycount.org
And it's not a contest...

Quote by Todd Hart
It's irrelevant that we went there to stop a threat to us, we removed a dictator who was gassing and torturing Kurds, Assyrians, Mandeans etc by the thousand and who posed a serious threat to his neighboring countries as well as us. He'd decimated populations, he decimated almost the entirety of the Mesopotamian marshes (widely seen as the greatest act of ecological destruction ever committed by man).

Whoa, hold up. You didn't mention that before. This changes everything.

Quote by Todd Hart
To even compare the casualties caused by the NATO intervention to Saddam's crimes as though they were somehow equivalent is disgusting.

Why? Death is death. They may not be 'morally' equivalent in your eyes, but in terms of the effect on their friends and loves one, do you really think it matters whether someone was killed due to purposeful action by an asshole leader desperately clinging to power or as collateral damage by a US bomb strike?

It doesn't.


Quote by Todd Hart
Unless it is saying that it's 100,000 deaths caused by NATO then you can guarantee a huge majority of the civilians were killed by the Taliban and other insurgent groups. The whole rationale of the Taliban, and to a slightly lesser extent Al-Qaeda, was that it's perfectly acceptable (and certainly acted out) to kill the Shia Muslims for perceived apostasy, and thus the majority of their efforts were poured into killing fellow Muslims, not the NATO and UN forces.

Bro, the Taliban is in Afghanistan, not Iraq.
Quote by EpiExplorer
I swear this guy in particular writes for the telegraph or some shit.

Quote by Fat Lard
My name can actually be traced back to as early as the 1990s, it means "fuck off data miner"
Last edited by ErikLensherr at Dec 6, 2012,
#133
Quote by Todd Hart
You're not going to assume that a force that is explicitly trying to kill civilians is more likely to have killed civilians than an interventionalist/peace-keeping force with no interest in killing civilians?

Erm, okay.


You're not going to assume that a force that was sent in to take deal with Saddam that has to deal with warfare in civilian areas (not even counting the several incidents where groups of US soldiers marched into villages and killing loads of people whether they were combatants or not) is likely to have killed a large portion of those people?


Edit: Also what Erik said. Death is death regardless of the reasons for the deaths. Stalin isn't better than Hitler because he killed for political reasons rather than because antisemitism.

Edit2: That last edit was about the whole thing regarding whether it's okay for civilian deaths in an intervention rather than a country's leader doing it for whatever reasons he may have.
Quote by L2112Lif
I put a ton of my capital into SW Airlines... The next day, THE NEXT DAY these nutters fly into the WTC. What the hell? Apparently no one wanted to fly anymore, and I was like "What gives? God damnit Osama, let me win a fuggin' game!"
Last edited by IRISH_PUNK13 at Dec 6, 2012,
#134
Quote by ErikLensherr
iraqbodycount.org
And it's not a contest...


You're the one who started saying that we've caused more deaths than the opposition had.

Why? Death is death. They may not be 'morally' equivalent in your eyes, but in terms of the effect on their friends and loves one, do you really think it matters whether someone was killed due to purposeful action by an asshole leader desperately clinging to power or as collateral damage by a US bomb strike?

It doesn't.


Right, so if a NATO soldier accidentally kills a civilian in crossfire it's identical to a warlord's soldiers mortaring a town of civilians with Sarin gas they're identical crimes in your opinion?

Bro, the Taliban is in Afghanistan, not Iraq.


To my knowledge Saddam Hussein was known to be harboring multiple Taliban terrorists - his harboring of terrorist was one of the main reasons we entered into the second Gulf War.

Quote by TooktheAtrain
Well, if the mutilation of babies resulting from DU with a half life of some 700 million years or more doesn't unsettle you, no argument will.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Iraqi_population


It unsettles me, but again, I still think it's a superior option to allow a dictator to commit genocide. The very fact it was genocide Saddam was committing meant that we were legally required to intervene. The fact that weapons have fallout is a tragedy, indeed.

Quote by IRISH_PUNK13
You're not going to assume that a force that was sent in to take deal with Saddam that has to deal with warfare in civilian areas (not even counting the several incidents where groups of US soldiers marched into villages and killing loads of people whether they were combatants or not) is likely to have killed a large portion of those people?


No, because it's clear that an army and insurgency group with explicit orders to kill civilians if they belong to specific ethnic/religious groups is clearly going to kill more civilians than a force sent to stop that army and insurgent group.

Edit: Also what Erik said. Death is death regardless of the reasons for the deaths. Stalin isn't better than Hitler because he killed for political reasons rather than because antisemitism.


There is an obvious difference between a child accidentally getting hit by a stray bullet to one being gassed to death for being a Kurd.

Edit2: That last edit was about the whole thing regarding whether it's okay for civilian deaths in an intervention rather than a country's leader doing it for whatever reasons he may have.


I'm not saying that interventions won't cause civilian deaths, that would be naive - any revolution or intervention, hell any use of violence is going to have civilian casualties. It's innate in war. But comparing genocide to collateral damage as though they were equivalent is preposterous.

Edit: I'd like to point out that I inb4d all this 'stand idly by' hokum.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
#135
I wonder how scared millions of people around the world would suddenly become if America decided to just let everyone resolve their own conflicts from now on.
Quote by Overlord
It's not hard to be nice, but it's nice to be hard
#136
Quote by Todd Hart
No, because it's clear that an army and insurgency group with explicit orders to kill civilians if they belong to specific ethnic/religious groups is clearly going to kill more civilians than a force sent to stop that army and insurgent group.

I'm not arguing whether one group did more or not, I'm saying that US forces probably killed a lot of that 100k too.

Quote by Todd Hart
There is an obvious difference between a child accidentally getting hit by a stray bullet to one being gassed to death for being a Kurd.

Yes, but I'd be willing to bet that both kids care far more about the fact that they're dying rather than what's causing them to dye.


Quote by Todd Hart
I'm not saying that interventions won't cause civilian deaths, that would be naive - any revolution or intervention, hell any use of violence is going to have civilian casualties. It's innate in war. But comparing genocide to collateral damage as though they were equivalent is preposterous.

Yeah, intentions are different, but at the end of the day, corpses are corpses regardless of how they ended up that way.
Quote by L2112Lif
I put a ton of my capital into SW Airlines... The next day, THE NEXT DAY these nutters fly into the WTC. What the hell? Apparently no one wanted to fly anymore, and I was like "What gives? God damnit Osama, let me win a fuggin' game!"
#137
Quote by Todd Hart
You're the one who started saying that we've caused more deaths than the opposition had.

And my main point is we've caused a lot of deaths, period.

Right, so if a NATO soldier accidentally kills a civilian in crossfire it's identical to a warlord's soldiers mortaring a town of civilians with Sarin gas they're identical crimes in your opinion?

Crime is defined by the law so no they're not identical crimes. They're not identical morally either. But they both end in people being identically dead.

To my knowledge Saddam Hussein was known to be harboring multiple Taliban terrorists - his harboring of terrorist was one of the main reasons we entered into the second Gulf War.

Source?

Edit: I'd like to point out that I inb4d all this 'stand idly by' hokum.

No one's said anything about 'standing idly by' we're questioning the wisdom of 'running in with guns blazing.'
Quote by EpiExplorer
I swear this guy in particular writes for the telegraph or some shit.

Quote by Fat Lard
My name can actually be traced back to as early as the 1990s, it means "fuck off data miner"
#138
Who said they wanted to run in with guns blazing?
“Just to sum up: I would do various things very quickly.” - Donald Trump
#139
Quote by bradulator
Who said they wanted to run in with guns blazing?

Everyone pro-intervention is a gun-toting madman in the minds of most liberals I've found.
#140
Quote by bradulator
Who said they wanted to run in with guns blazing?

Is that not what this whole thing's about?
Quote by EpiExplorer
I swear this guy in particular writes for the telegraph or some shit.

Quote by Fat Lard
My name can actually be traced back to as early as the 1990s, it means "fuck off data miner"
#141
Quote by willT08
Everyone pro-intervention is a gun-toting madman in the minds of most liberals I've found.

Imho, intervention doesn't even mean that the West has to send troops. We could send the rebels weapons and officers to train them. Etc.
#142
Quote by ErikLensherr
Is that not what this whole thing's about?

Guns blazing has a recklessly negative connotation that I don't think any of us want.
“Just to sum up: I would do various things very quickly.” - Donald Trump
#143
Well, pretend I just said invading then.
Quote by EpiExplorer
I swear this guy in particular writes for the telegraph or some shit.

Quote by Fat Lard
My name can actually be traced back to as early as the 1990s, it means "fuck off data miner"
#144
Invading also has a recklessly negative connotation.
“Just to sum up: I would do various things very quickly.” - Donald Trump
#145
Because it's a recklessly negative action, lol. Aren't you all into pacifism and Ron Paul anyway, brad.
Quote by EpiExplorer
I swear this guy in particular writes for the telegraph or some shit.

Quote by Fat Lard
My name can actually be traced back to as early as the 1990s, it means "fuck off data miner"
#147
It's not, I was just wondering. This whole situation is sort of relevant to a critique of Gandhi's nonviolence but I won't go into it.
Quote by EpiExplorer
I swear this guy in particular writes for the telegraph or some shit.

Quote by Fat Lard
My name can actually be traced back to as early as the 1990s, it means "fuck off data miner"
#148
A recklessly negative action that nobody here is advocating.

"Invade - To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage."

That is not what we want to do.

I am a pacifist but I do think there's a time and place when helping somebody out is practical and more desirable than just sitting by and watching innocent people die.
“Just to sum up: I would do various things very quickly.” - Donald Trump
#149
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
Imho, intervention doesn't even mean that the West has to send troops. We could send the rebels weapons and officers to train them. Etc.


Problem with this is what I said before about the possibility of active western support making things much worse. It's not a bad idea (although I dislike that the new Syrian government that emerges after this would end up owing the US for it, which rarely ends well), but it could cause more problems.
Quote by L2112Lif
I put a ton of my capital into SW Airlines... The next day, THE NEXT DAY these nutters fly into the WTC. What the hell? Apparently no one wanted to fly anymore, and I was like "What gives? God damnit Osama, let me win a fuggin' game!"
#150
Quote by ErikLensherr
It's not, I was just wondering. This whole situation is sort of relevant to a critique of Gandhi's nonviolence but I won't go into it.


Yeah and I love Gandhi and have a hard time finding things to disagree with about him. Even with the Hitler/WW2 stuff I admire his beliefs. But I dunno what that has to do with anything.
“Just to sum up: I would do various things very quickly.” - Donald Trump
#151
Quote by IRISH_PUNK13
I'm not arguing whether one group did more or not, I'm saying that US forces probably killed a lot of that 100k too.


They very well might have, but if the choice is between intervening and causing civilian casualties or leaving a genocidal dictator in power so he can continue to kill civilians at a much higher rate and continue to encroach on and flat out invade neighboring contries then I know which I would choose.

Yes, but I'd be willing to bet that both kids care far more about the fact that they're dying rather than what's causing them to dye.

Yeah, intentions are different, but at the end of the day, corpses are corpses regardless of how they ended up that way.


International politics is clearly about the greatest good for the greatest number.

Quote by ErikLensherr
And my main point is we've caused a lot of deaths, period.


Indeed, but we prevented a much larger number of deaths from being committed, continual threat against neighboring countries and massive ecological damage.

Crime is defined by the law so no they're not identical crimes. They're not identical morally either. But they both end in people being identically dead.


Yes, but one methods ends the reign of a genocidal dictator, at the cost of less lives than if he had been left in power.

Source?


Ah my mistake, it was Al-Qaeda, not the Taliban. link They're still terrorist organisation that were slaughtering Shia and Sufi Muslims in droves, as well as civilians in other countries.

No one's said anything about 'standing idly by' we're questioning the wisdom of 'running in with guns blazing.'


Nobody said anything about 'running in guns blazing'.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
#152
Quote by IRISH_PUNK13
Problem with this is what I said before about the possibility of active western support making things much worse. It's not a bad idea (although I dislike that the new Syrian government that emerges after this would end up owing the US for it, which rarely ends well), but it could cause more problems.

There have been a few arguments popping up that western support might reduce the already rising risk of extremists.


Of course, I don't subscribe to such ridiculous ideologies, as arming terrorist mercenaries to do America's bidding in Syria is only going to hurt 30,000 more people.
#153
Quote by ali.guitarkid7
There have been a few arguments popping up that western support might reduce the already rising risk of extremists.

Well that's obviously silly western propaganda.
But boys will be boys and girls have those eyes
that'll cut you to ribbons, sometimes
and all you can do is just wait by the moon
and bleed if it's what she says you ought to do
#154
Quote by Todd Hart

It unsettles me, but again, I still think it's a superior option to allow a dictator to commit genocide. The very fact it was genocide Saddam was committing meant that we were legally required to intervene. The fact that weapons have fallout is a tragedy, indeed.


I would be able, albeit reluctant, to accept the deformation of babies within a short time frame in the efforts to displace a despot.

Thing is, this means that certain areas in Iraq are effective uninhabitable due to the sickness caused, and will continue to be for the foreseeable remainder of humanity's existence.

Not forever and eternity, but it may as well be.
Last edited by TooktheAtrain at Dec 6, 2012,
#155
Quote by Todd Hart
Indeed, but we prevented a much larger number of deaths from being committed, continual threat against neighboring countries and massive ecological damage.

Ugh, I don't know why this has devolved into arguing about reasons for a war we already started a decade ago but okay.

Short of a crystal ball you have no possible way of knowing if Saddam would've killed more people than died as a result of the war so this logic is nonsense. Like I said, the gas attacks were years before our invasion and Kurdistan basically had de facto autonomy by that time.

When you're looking at what he was doing in late 2002/early 2003, when we actually invaded, was he the worst of the worst? There are a lot of asshole leaders around the globe doing a lot of bad things, so why's he so special?

I'm gonna ignore the "ecological damage" because I know you're seriously using polluted marshes as a rationale for invading a country.
Ah my mistake, it was Al-Qaeda, not the Taliban. link They're still terrorist organisation that were slaughtering Shia and Sufi Muslims in droves, as well as civilians in other countries.
Um,

On April 29, 2007, former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet said on 60 Minutes, "We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period."

Nobody said anything about 'running in guns blazing'.

Maybe you guys should share what you actually want to do, specifically.

Quote by bradulator
Yeah and I love Gandhi and have a hard time finding things to disagree with about him. Even with the Hitler/WW2 stuff I admire his beliefs. But I dunno what that has to do with anything.

Because if he were still around, he'd probably say the corporeal realm doesn't matter and the Syrian rebels should just let themselves die rather than be corrupted by violence. Which is why Hannah Arendt thinks he's silly.
Quote by EpiExplorer
I swear this guy in particular writes for the telegraph or some shit.

Quote by Fat Lard
My name can actually be traced back to as early as the 1990s, it means "fuck off data miner"
Last edited by ErikLensherr at Dec 6, 2012,
#156
Quote by Todd Hart
They very well might have, but if the choice is between intervening and causing civilian casualties or leaving a genocidal dictator in power so he can continue to kill civilians at a much higher rate and continue to encroach on and flat out invade neighboring contries then I know which I would choose.


International politics is clearly about the greatest good for the greatest number.


I agree that it's for the best. I'm not arguing whether or not it's for the best to intervene when shit like this is going on, I'm just arguing what you said before about the civilian casualties.

Indeed.
Quote by L2112Lif
I put a ton of my capital into SW Airlines... The next day, THE NEXT DAY these nutters fly into the WTC. What the hell? Apparently no one wanted to fly anymore, and I was like "What gives? God damnit Osama, let me win a fuggin' game!"
#157
Quote by ErikLensherr
Because if he were still around, he'd probably say the corporeal realm doesn't matter and the Syrian rebels should just let themselves die rather than be corrupted by violence. Which is why Hannah Arendt thinks he's silly.

Yeah and that's why she dumb.
“Just to sum up: I would do various things very quickly.” - Donald Trump
#158
She was also cuter than Gandhi.
Quote by EpiExplorer
I swear this guy in particular writes for the telegraph or some shit.

Quote by Fat Lard
My name can actually be traced back to as early as the 1990s, it means "fuck off data miner"
#159
Pretty sure Gandhi used to sleep naked with young girls so he could 'test' his purity or some shit. I can totally imagine how that went down.
Quote by L2112Lif
I put a ton of my capital into SW Airlines... The next day, THE NEXT DAY these nutters fly into the WTC. What the hell? Apparently no one wanted to fly anymore, and I was like "What gives? God damnit Osama, let me win a fuggin' game!"
#160
Quote by ErikLensherr
She was also cuter than Gandhi.

Not by much. But I'd still hit it.