Battle for Dune is Like Battle for Iraq

[Cyborg]

It was filthy of USA to ignore UN, though.

No, it is filthy of the UN to ignore human slaughtering. Shame on the UN. After all, isn't their purpose to build a better world? How long has they been in power? What have they changed?

So you deny that what USA and Britain does is human slaughtering?

As far as I know, there has almost never died so many people in Iraq as now.

[Miles]

It was filthy of USA to ignore UN, though.

No, it is filthy of the UN to ignore human slaughtering. Shame on the UN. After all, isn't their purpose to build a better world? How long has they been in power? What have they changed?

So you deny that what USA and Britain does is human slaughtering?

As far as I know, there has almost never died so many people in Iraq as now.

What the US and Britain are doing is liberating. We are slaughtering those that would torture and murder innocent civilians.

You need to learn a little more about what Saddam has done to his people.

[Miles]

But that doesn't make the war a morally correct deed from the coalition.

There could still be done some attempts at diplomatic solutions

So, if you see a woman being raped by a man across the street, are you immoral if you cross the street and use violence to stop him?

[Anathema]

The primairy purpose of the UN is to keep the world stable and prevent another world war. The basis of the UN is that everybody abides and respects the UN charter wich they signed. Thanks to the US we're going back to the old thirties were nobody cared a rats @ss what the rest of the world thinks.

[Egeides]

It was filthy of USA to ignore UN, though.

No, it is filthy of the UN to ignore human slaughtering. Shame on the UN. After all, isn't their purpose to build a better world? How long has they been in power? What have they changed?

So you deny that what USA and Britain does is human slaughtering?

As far as I know, there has almost never died so many people in Iraq as now.

They don't say the same things in the American medias so don't expect US citizens to really believe you or understand you... I know a Middle East specialist (he's one of our history teachers) that puts the tolls to 1500 dead persons PER DAY. This is only the deaths, not injuries, destruction and long term effects like depleted uranium. Be sure what he says wont ever get to CNN since it's sorta banished the same way US stuff is out of Al Jazera.

[Gobalopper]

Where is he getting those numbers? Even the Iraqi gov't isn't saying the numbers are that high.

[Miles]

And what makes a middle east specialist a specialist in modern warfare? How would knowing a lot about the middle east enlighten him to the casualty figures?

[Egeides]

The numbers are soming from having channels from Europe, USA, Canada and Middle East (it's his speciality so...). More than that, I would not be confident in saying it is necessarily true or anything. May be influenced by some ideas (he's from Liban I think)? Why not, but this is not what makes him be true or not. We're all influenced by our environment. But he is the guy that goes to the provincial TV news each time Middle East comes out (his schedule was full from morning to night a few weeks ago, I know that for sure). I can say at least that in our university we have three persons specialized on this kind of stuff (one specialist of Russia, the one with Middle East and one specialized on USA) and I talked to the historian specialized on USA: he's not surprised by the numbers. Guess I'll try to know more about it (I don't see this teacher every day). But I just don't understand how you guys make to NOT find opinions from dissidence. May be specific to French Canada to have that many dissidents?...

One thing: when you'll get the numbers from some other source, will you check the source too?... If you don't ask the same sources solidity from everyone just because it looks ok to you (ie. is of your opinion) it's problematic.

Miles: No idea what are his competences with warfare but from the moment it touches Middle East, he's the one around here. As an historian, he's supposed to be able to deal with this kind of things.

[Gobalopper]

The Iraqi gov't, who would be the ones most likely to exagerate civilian deaths, does not have numbers even close to 1500 a day. Most sites that I've seen who are against the war because it would cause civilian deaths don't even have 1500 *overall* civilian deaths so I think your friend is talking out of his arse.

Sure there might be 1500 deaths per day if you count military but that is expected in war.

[Egeides]

I was in fact myself surprised by the numbers. Perhaps something is included in this... like maybe long term effects were included and I didn't knew or anything. Don't worry, I'll come back to give the answer, even if it takes a week.

[Gobalopper]

"Iraq says nearly 500 civilians have been killed and more than 4,000 wounded since the war began."

Thats from the Iraqi government. Which is amazingly low considering the UN estimated 500,000 civilian causalties before the war started.

[Cyborg]

What the US and Britain are doing is liberating. We are slaughtering those that would torture and murder innocent civilians.

They are also killing unnecessary numbers of civilians because of reasons I have stated earlier.

You need to learn a little more about what Saddam has done to his people.

Before you insinuate my ignorance about Saddam, please read my last posts one more time, or maybe a first time. In them, I clearly stated that I knew very much about Saddam thanks to a long documentary about his life as a leader of Iraq. :)

The primairy purpose of the UN is to keep the world stable and prevent another world war. The basis of the UN is that everybody abides and respects the UN charter wich they signed. Thanks to the US we're going back to the old thirties were nobody cared a rats @ss what the rest of the world thinks.

I agree with you, Earthnuker.

But that doesn't make the war a morally correct deed from the coalition.

There could still be done some attempts at diplomatic solutions

So, if you see a woman being raped by a man across the street, are you immoral if you cross the street and use violence to stop him?

This is how it should be:

If a woman is being raped by a man across the street, are you immoral if you shoot him and kill him, and then rape her?

YES, you are! You will stop him from rape her( like USA stop Saddam from killing his people), but you will kill him(which in this example must be the only good thing...), and also rape her(like while Saddam won't kill his people, USA will at the moment).

I am, if you haven't noticed, very hostile towards both Saddam and USA.

I know the coalition forces doesn't mean to kill the civilians, so the above example is hihgly inaccurate. My last posts have been quite on the edge, but it's fun to see how people respond to them ;D

I do agee with most of you. Especially Gob, Nema and Earthnuker I think, but as I stated above, it is fun to see how people react to the opposite of what they mean. :)

*EDIT* I fixed the quotes

[Dude_Doc]

This is how it should be:

If a woman is being raped by a man across the street, are you immoral if you shoot him and kill him, and then rape her?

YES, you are! You will stop him from rape her( like USA stop Saddam from killing his people), but you will kill him(which in this example must be the only good thing...), and also rape her(like while Saddam won't kill his people, USA will at the moment).

Using voilence doesn't mean that you have to kill. It means that you use force to remove

a threat. If the woman is being raped, and you knock down the rapist, you would do the right thing. If you, on the other hand, shot the rapist, then you would also make a mistake.

Then again, killing is evil. Isn't it Saddam who commits the crime? He has killed more people than the US army, so you can't possibly say he killed less. Dying as a soldier in battle is different than dying as an innocent in a gas chamber.

So basically, yes, the UN is there to stop another world war, but also to remove conflicts and misery. Then what if Sweden started a war with Norway? What would the UN do? Nothing! What if the swedish prime minister decided to kill thousands of Norwegians because he didn't like them? How long would it take the UN to do anything about it? Probably a year. It is not right if a country commits mass-murder. Any nation on this planet should have the right to stop any killings of innocent civillians in any country. But as far as I can see, the UN needs one or more WMD's to attack any nation....

[Miles]

They are also killing unnecessary numbers of civilians because of reasons I have stated earlier.

In the long run, we will have saved many, many more civilians lives then we have killed.

Before you insinuate my ignorance about Saddam, please read my last posts one more time, or maybe a first time. In them, I clearly stated that I knew very much about Saddam thanks to a long documentary about his life as a leader of Iraq. :)

Then you should know that the number of civilian deaths now compared to the number of civilian deaths during Saddam's reign don't even compare.

The primairy purpose of the UN is to keep the world stable and prevent another world war. The basis of the UN is that everybody abides and respects the UN charter wich they signed. Thanks to the US we're going back to the old thirties were nobody cared a rats @ss what the rest of the world thinks.

No, we won't let a few weak and gutless countries put us at risk because of their cowardice, or perhaps their own selfish interests. Don't you forget how big the coalition of the willing actually is, so the whole world is not against us.

This is how it should be:

If a woman is being raped by a man across the street, are you immoral if you shoot him and kill him, and then rape her?

YES, you are! You will stop him from rape her( like USA stop Saddam from killing his people), but you will kill him(which in this example must be the only good thing...), and also rape her(like while Saddam won't kill his people, USA will at the moment).

I am, if you haven't noticed, very hostile towards both Saddam and USA.

I know the coalition forces doesn't mean to kill the civilians, so the above example is hihgly inaccurate. My last posts have been quite on the edge, but it's fun to see how people respond to them ;D

You're right, your analogy is highly innacurate. A better correction of the original analogy would be this.

As you rush to interfere with force, the woman is used as a shield by the rapist. Because you don't want to shoot the woman, you put the gun away and rush the man with fists alone. In the struggle, the woman is hit and suffers a few minor injuries, but the rapist is killed during the struggle never to rape another.

[Miles]

Using voilence doesn't mean that you have to kill. It means that you use force to remove

a threat. If the woman is being raped, and you knock down the rapist, you would do the right thing. If you, on the other hand, shot the rapist, then you would also make a mistake.

Unfortunately this is where the analogy does not fit reality.

I don't think it would work if we to start pushing the republican guard around saying "stop it you big nasty!" Unfortunately, killing Saddam's regime is the only option.

[Cyborg]

I think I'll stop with my opposition meanings.

They often receive answers which is just denying...

I must say that I haven't been looking for any facts, which may result in some inaccurate sayings, but some of the arguments I have written, can only receive a confirming answer. But there's always some who post any negative answer which don't make the most sense to me.

I am, to say it straight out, for the war. I don't want Saddam to stay in his position nor do I want him to be able to murder any more civilians. I have been trying to see the war from a different perspective, which has been quite teaching in how to just defend Bush no matter what happens... :)

[Sardauker-Kirov]

Saddam is the most lowest lifeform on the face of the planet, he kills his 'own' people just because they are saying bad stuff.

If someone ate a apple for example, which he hates.

His soldiers will travel 100 miles just to kill the person that ate the apple.

He is a coward and a fool.

And now, he thinks he is winning the war in Iraq. This guy is really retarded. His men are surrendering and getting slaughtered by the Americans, while he sits in his chair and brags about himself.

If the Americans captured him, they must give him a slow painful death. Let him suffer for what he did against his own people.

[Acriku]

He'd either be kept in an undisclosed area, or put to life. Martyrdom is a serious threat.