Time to kick Iran

[RandFan]

Who is BTW, in first place?
My point is that is bad, to assassinate foreign leaders ( unless it is a foreign leader of a country you are at war against, and, even in that case, I would have any reserves ), it is even worse that it was ( until recently ) legal.

BTW = By the way.

What do you mean by "bad"? Immoral?

I honestly don't know. Why is the requirement of war so important? If a world leader represents a dire threat and there is no war, is that immoral? From a PR perspective I think it's bad. For purely political or financial reasons I think it is immoral.

I ask your forgiveness in advance for being rude but I think you have a simplistic, black and white view of the world. I think the world is actually a bit more subtle than that.

 

[RandFan]

The video was taken during one of Mr. A' s speeches in front of a large crowd.
What is wrong with that?

?

I'm honestly confused. Perhaps something is being lost in translation. You don't find anything simplistic, racist or anti-semetic in his speach?

!!! Godwin Alert !!!

So, by your logic, the Nuremberg rallies were cool because they were outside in front of a large crowd?

Did George W. say " death to Iran "?

No, I'm saying that IF George W. DID say that the world would be outraged.

Do I have to defend George W., now?

Again, you are confusing me, when did I say you had to defend George W? I'm saying that if he did say that he should be condemned, right?

 

[RandFan]

Maybe, the best way to export democracy in Iran is not by a war.

Ya think?

Dude, I'm not defending the decision. I'm pointing out to Oliver that there is another explanation beside imperialism.

Look at how well it worked out with Iraq..

See above.

BTW, Kurdistan turned out great. If Iraq had gone the way of Kurdistan Bush would have been a world hero. I think that was possible BTW. I think the war was botched.

 

[Ion]

...
I would like to know their opinion about the video, where Mr. A says " death to Israel " in front of a large crowd..

My opinion should have been obvious by now.

Saying Death to Israel augures for criminal behavior.

Killing like Bush does, is criminal.

 

[Segnosaur]

Well, let me simply put is this way for you to understand:

What is the more dangerous society:

1. A society that says "Death to another country", "Cut their heads off", "Eat little Children" - and does nothing concerning what they say.

Except that's not what is happening with Iran... in fact, Iran is providing financial and tactical support to Hezbollah, a groups who have the explicit stated purpose is to eliminate Israel. So, they certaily are taking action.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah

2. A society that formally says: "FREEDOM!", "PIECE", DEMOCRACY!"
- and goes to war, starts covert operations and invades countries that are no threat.

So, are you saying that freedom and democracy are not principles worth fighting for?

You seem to suggest that a country's borders are somehow inpenetrable (for all intents), and that a country's government should be allowed to do anything they want to their citizens (including suppression of free speech, genocide, etc.)

So tell me, is there ANYTHING that a government can do to its people that you would feel would allow unilateral action? For example, do you think they should have been left to continue the genocide in Serbia, on the premise that it was an internal matter and did not pose a threat to outside countries?

 

[Matteo Martini]

BTW = By the way.

What do you mean by "bad"? Immoral?

Start a war which leads to death of thousands or tens of thousands of civilian innocent people is,. how can I say, bad..
I can not see another way to say it.
Sorry, I am so naive!!

I honestly don't know. Why is the requirement of war so important? If a world leader represents a dire threat and there is no war, is that immoral? From a PR perspective I think it's bad. For purely political or financial reasons I think it is immoral.

Ah!!
It is bad to kill innocent lives, or cause them to die for PR reasons, I see.
And you, maybe, are among the guys who stanchly support death penalty against poor desprate that rob banks killing one or two people..
As I say:
"Kill one man and you are a murderer. Kill millions and you are a conqueror. Kill everyone and you are a God." - Jean Rostand

I ask your forgiveness in advance for being rude but I think you have a simplistic, black and white view of the world. I think the world is actually a bit more subtle than that.

No.
I do not have a black and white view of the world.
I think that death of innocent people, when avoidable, should be avoided.
If this is having a simplistic, black and white view of the world, then OK

 

[Matteo Martini]

My opinion should have been obvious by now.

Saying Death to Israel augures for criminal behavior.

Killing like Bush does, is criminal.

Why do you speak about Bush, when my questiuon was about Mr. A?

So, you think that Mr. A does, in fact, augure for criminal behaviour?

 

[Matteo Martini]

Ya think?

Dude, I'm not defending the decision. I'm pointing out to Oliver that there is another explanation beside imperialism.

Good

BTW, Kurdistan turned out great. If Iraq had gone the way of Kurdistan Bush would have been a world hero. I think that was possible BTW. I think the war was botched.

If granma had wheels, she would be a bicycle.

 

[Matteo Martini]

?

I'm honestly confused. Perhaps something is being lost in translation. You don't find anything simplistic, racist or anti-semetic in his speach?

!!! Godwin Alert !!!

Yes.
But the antisemitic and racist is Mr. A, not the guy who took the video footage..

No, I'm saying that IF George W. DID say that the world would be outraged.

He did not rule out the use of nuclear weapons against Iran

Again, you are confusing me, when did I say you had to defend George W? I'm saying that if he did say that he should be condemned, right?

He said something not so far away.
See above.

 

[RandFan]

Start a war which leads to death of thousands or tens of thousands of civilian innocent people is,. how can I say, bad..
I can not see another way to say it.
Sorry, I am so naive!!

• I wasn't talking about the war. I was talking about assassination.
• America did not intend for the people to be killed.
• America is not targeting innocent people.
• Tens of thousands were dying and were oppressed by Saddam.

The world is not really so black and white. But I understand why it's comforting to see it that way.

It is bad to kill innocent lives, or cause them to die for PR reasons, I see.

I wasn't talking about the war. I was talking about assassinating foreign leaders.

And you, maybe, are among the guys who stanchly support death penalty against poor desprate that rob banks killing one or two people..

?

What? This is more of your black and white thinking. I don't see the world that way.

As I say:
"Kill one man and you are a murderer. Kill millions and you are a conqueror. Kill everyone and you are a God." - Jean Rostand

The war was not started with the intent to kill innocent people.

No.
I do not have a black and white view of the world.

Sure.

I think that death of innocent people, when avoidable, should be avoided.
If this is having a simplistic, black and white view of the world, then OK.

When you set up simplistic scenarios then yes, it is black and white thinking. Not much to argue about that.

• Innocent people were dying.
• Innocent people were suffering.
• I know, I know, so long as it was Saddam doing the killing and torturing you were fine with it. It was only after America tried to intervene and mucked everything up that you suddenly felt pain for the Iraqi people. Sure.

The war was wrong. Your view is demonstrably black and white.

 

[Segnosaur]

I do not have a black and white view of the world.
I think that death of innocent people, when avoidable, should be avoided.
If this is having a simplistic, black and white view of the world, then OK

Actually, yes, your view is overly simplistic.

You see, the problem is, you are (mistakenly) assuming that the opposite of war is a situation with no civilian deaths. That is not always the case.

Take Iraq for example... Yes, there are many civilian deaths. Some from direct U.S. military activity ("collateral damage"), others from terrorist activities that would not happen had the U.S. not invaded. But the alternative to the invasion (and the resulting deaths) was not a peaceful country where everyone lived happily ever after. Saddam regularly suppressed his people, resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths, and his activities continued right up until the invasion with his campaign against the Marsh Arabs.

The failure of your rather simplistic view is that you look only at the deaths that result from the current situation, without considering what the results of the most likely alternative scenarios would be.

Edited to add:
I notice you overlooked a question I asked in a previous post:

So tell me, is there ANYTHING that a government can do to its people that you would feel would allow unilateral action? For example, do you think they should have been left to continue the genocide in Serbia, on the premise that it was an internal matter and did not pose a threat to outside countries?

 

[RandFan]

But the antisemitic and racist is Mr. A, not the guy who took the video footage..

? "The guy who took the video footage"? Boy, you've really lost me now. Who was talking about him and why?

He did not rule out the use of nuclear weapons against Iran

Big, BIG difference.

He said something not so far away.

Only in a defensive move. It would be stupid to rule it out. Not one single nation who has nuclear weapons would rule it out. Hell, why have the nulcear weapons? Iran is sure as hell not going to get nuclear weapons and then suddenly rule out using them. No nation would. It doesn't make sense.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Actually, yes, your view is overly simplistic.

You see, the problem is, you are (mistakenly) assuming that the opposite of war is a situation with no civilian deaths. That is not always the case.

Or less civilian deaths?

Take Iraq for example... Yes, there are many civilian deaths. Some from direct U.S. military activity ("collateral damage"), others from terrorist activities that would not happen had the U.S. not invaded. But the alternative to the invasion (and the resulting deaths) was not a peaceful country where everyone lived happily ever after. Saddam regularly suppressed his people, resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths, and his activities continued right up until the invasion with his campaign against the Marsh Arabs.

Yes.
Saddam was a criminal.
And, he was responsible of many deaths.
Now, you invaded that country, and you became co-responsible of the deaths.
Congratulations.

The failure of your rather simplistic view is that you look only at the deaths that result from the current situation, without considering what the results of the most likely alternative scenarios would be.

I highly doubt that, under Saddam, things would have been worse than they are now.
Considering also, that Saddam' s behaviour could have been controlled far better, than single terrorists..

Edited to add:
I notice you overlooked a question I asked in a previous post:

So tell me, is there ANYTHING that a government can do to its people that you would feel would allow unilateral action? For example, do you think they should have been left to continue the genocide in Serbia, on the premise that it was an internal matter and did not pose a threat to outside countries?

As I said in many many places.
An intervention in a foreign country, should be discussed and approved at the UN level.
If the US go there alone, and a mess happens, they become co-responsible or responsible of the mess..

 

[Matteo Martini]

? "The guy who took the video footage"? Boy, you've really lost me now. Who was talking about him and why?

I said:
Mr. A is a racist and a stupid to have said what he said.
The guy who took the video, was a nice guy.
Simple and plain.

Big, BIG difference.

If Bush does not rule out nuclear attack over Iran, he is not too far from Mr. A

Only in a defensive move. It would be stupid to rule it out. Not one single nation who has nuclear weapons would rule it out. Hell, why have the nulcear weapons?

Exactly.
This is why so many countries are seeking nukes.
Only with nukes you can be sure from the US' nukes
Only having them

 

[Matteo Martini]

• I wasn't talking about the war. I was talking about assassination.
• America did not intend for the people to be killed.

• 
  
  The result is what it counts
  So many times, bad comes out from people who wanted to do only good!!
  
  

  [*]America is not targeting innocent people.
  [*]Tens of thousands were dying and were oppressed by Saddam.

Tens of thousands are being killed now.

The world is not really so black and white. But I understand why it's comforting to see it that way.

I wasn't talking about the war. I was talking about assassinating foreign leaders.

Also assassination of foreign leaders is not a thing to do.

The war was not started with the intent to kill innocent people.

The result is what counts

[*]Innocent people were dying.
[*]Innocent people were suffering.

Now,
[*]Innocent people are dying.
[*]Innocent people are suffering.

[*]I know, I know, so long as it was Saddam doing the killing and torturing you were fine with it.

You did not understand a heck of what I am saying.
Zero, nich, nada, zilch

It was only after America tried to intervene and mucked everything up that you suddenly felt pain for the Iraqi people. Sure.[/LIST]The war was wrong. Your view is demonstrably black and white.

Too bad.
I have posted and lost so much time, and you have understood zero of my position.

 

[RandFan]

I said:
Mr. A is a racist and a stupid to have said what he said.
The guy who took the video, was a nice guy.
Simple and plain.

Not a clue dude. When I said the video was demonstrably shallow and racists it sure has hell wasn't about the guy taking the video. That doesn't make any sense.

If Bush does not rule out nuclear attack over Iran, he is not too far from Mr. A

This is just silly and dumb. No.

Exactly.
This is why so many countries are seeking nukes.
Only with nukes you can be sure from the US' nukes
Only having them

Please make up your mind.

 

[RandFan]

The result is what it counts
So many times, bad comes out from people who wanted to do only good!!

It's called life. It happens.

Also assassination of foreign leaders is not a thing to do.

I a black and white world, sure.

Now,
[*]Innocent people are dying.
[*]Innocent people are suffering.

Yes, but you only care now.

You did not understand a heck of what I am saying.

Your postion is clear. People dying under Saddam will not raise your ire. America trying to help people and failing will earn your contempt and animosity. It's not a difficult thing to understand.

 

[Oliver]

America trying to help people and failing will earn your contempt and animosity.

Why did Halliburton fail?

 

[Segnosaur]

You see, the problem is, you are (mistakenly) assuming that the opposite of war is a situation with no civilian deaths. That is not always the case.

Or less civilian deaths?

But at no point have I ever seen you refer to civilian deaths in the pre-invasion time frame, or ever suggest that there would continue to be deaths even without an invasion.

Yes.
Saddam was a criminal.
And, he was responsible of many deaths.
Now, you invaded that country, and you became co-responsible of the deaths.
Congratulations.

First of all, the term 'co-responsible' in the above sentence is important. In my opinion, the U.S. would prefer a peaceful, democratic Iraq. It is the insurgents who are causing the bulk of the problems at this point in time.

I highly doubt that, under Saddam, things would have been worse than they are now.

Well, lets see...

There have been approximately 70,000 deaths in Iraq in the 4 years/4 months since the invasion (according to the Iraq body count web site). That works out to a little over 16,000 per year.

In the 24 years that Saddam was in power, the number of estimated deaths has ranged anywhere from 500,000 to 1 million (depending on how you attribute deaths due to the war with Iran, premature deaths due to the misuse of oil-for-food money, plus the various genocides.) That works out to between 20,000 and 40,000 deaths per year.

Personally, I'd rather see no deaths, but given a choice I'd rather see 16,000 deaths than 20,000 or 40,000. Oh, and I should add... under Saddam situations were unlikely to improve (as his sons would likely take over his leadership and were just as brutal as he was). At least with the current situation, there is a chance for the situation to improve. (And had Bush not screwed up his handling of Iraq post-invasion, the situation might even be better.)

Considering also, that Saddam' s behaviour could have been controlled far better, than single terrorists..

And just how exactly do you propose they could have done that?

Sanctions? They weren't working too well (given Iraq's use of money to fund the military rather than buy food/medicine, not to mention illegal oil sales) They were causing hardship for the Iraqi people and likely adding to the premature deaths.

So tell me, is there ANYTHING that a government can do to its people that you would feel would allow unilateral action? For example, do you think they should have been left to continue the genocide in Serbia, on the premise that it was an internal matter and did not pose a threat to outside countries?

As I said in many many places.
An intervention in a foreign country, should be discussed and approved at the UN level.

So, let me make this 100% clear...

You are basically saying that you had no moral objection to the genocide in Serbia, because the U.N. did not approve any action to correct the situation. Is that what you're saying? (And if the U.N. does not act on the situation, then it is not worthy of action.)

 

[RandFan]

Why did Halliburton fail?

Haliburton could have done very well without a war. Bush could have written any contract he wanted with Saddam and Saddam would have happily done so. Bush just needed to announce to the world that he had persuaded Saddam to comply and everyone would have been rich and happy.