Iraqis protest American presence

[Acriku]

Intentional deaths and deaths that could have been helped..

[Edric O]

Ace, I was talking about MY posts. You know, the ones where I tried to explain the ideals and principles of Communism to you.

[Dude_Doc]

It also depends on how and why they die. Starvation is needless, same with deaths to primitive disease. Other, intentional, intolerant deaths that occur because of totalitarian ideology is what's atrocious to me.

Exactly. Starvation can be stopped if the leaders of that country just did something, like removing warlords, fundamentalists etc. How are the western world going to help poor countries if warlords take every piece of bread and water that comes to their country? What, maybe invade it? Yeah, that's breaking about 1.000.000 rules, all made by the UN. How do you, Edric, help these people? What are you doing in this very moment to prevent another 3000 children of dying tomorrow?

[SurlyPIG]

Exactly Dude Doc. Exactly. How can you help a nation when everything you give them is seized by warlords or dictators? Even charity money for sponsored kids is mostly seized before it gets to where its needed. And what do they use that seized money to do? Buy and make weapons, weapons, and more weapons. We've seen it all the time.

The only way to help those people is to remove the ones opressing them.

[Acriku]

And the only way to do that, provided the leader isn't that easy to surrender, is to militarily remove him. Like now, for instance.

[Egeides]

The very first thing to do would be to not encourage such men for decades and to not place them there ::)

[DukeLeto]

I will never understand why some people say "big whoop" in the face of a genocidal atrocity. It reminds me of the passive Germans that said "big whoop" in the face of the holocaust.

The Holocaust was a "Genocidal Atrocity". Stalinistic Russia was a "Genocidal Atrocity". What Bush is doing to the poor citizens of Iraq and other countries like it in the name of "freedom" is a "Genocidal Atrocity". But 9/11? An atrocity, maybe, but not "genocidal".

I'm apalled you can compare 9/11 to the holocaust. The Holocaust was 11 million deaths; 9/11 was but a thounsand.

I'm not saying 9/11 wasn't bad. But what has happened in the wake of it is a h*ll of a lot worse.

(Though I fail to see what attacking Iraq had to do with 9/11; not one of the hijackers was Iraqi, and there is no proof the Iraqi Government was connected to Al-Queada)

[SurlyPIG]

It was the mass murder of a huge number of people that represented an entire society; the highest of highest achievers in the WORLD are the only ones who made it into the WTC. They were murdered because of who they were. They had done nothing to provoke such an attack. How the hell is this NOT genocide?

Why some people deny the Holocause I don't know. Why some people consider 9/11 a "big whoop" I don't know.

Why some people FALSELY deny positive links between Hussein and al Qaeda I don't know.

Your commie-driven hatred for the president your country elected won't change the fact that what happened in the wake of 9/11 has been good and long-needed. The freedom of millions and millions will have to take prescedence over few civillian casualties caused mostly by the opposition.

[Acriku]

Since when is civilian casualties (which is still in the hundreds) is more atrocious than what happened on 09/11 (which is in the thousands)?

[Dude_Doc]

The very first thing to do would be to not encourage such men for decades and to not place them there.

But they place themselves. Their countries do not have any control! And what about all the people who will die while we try to do this? Sadly, force is the only way of getting rid of these societies. Pretty much like Hitler, he wasn't stopped with diplomacy or talk, but by force, and force alone.

[Anathema]

Ace:

It was the mass murder of a huge number of people that represented an entire society; the highest of highest achievers in the WORLD are the only ones who made it into the WTC. They were murdered because of who they were. They had done nothing to provoke such an attack. How the hell is this NOT genocide?

9/11 was a sad day, but far overrated. "genocide" is a term that refers to the extermination of an entire race, and if the killing of a "mere" 2,000 people from a nation with over 250 million people qualifies as genocide then traffic does as well because many, many more people die from traffic then from an occasional terrorist attack. The only reason there's such a huff about it is that for the first time since the revolution America was attacked on their own soil.

Why some people FALSELY deny positive links between Hussein and al Qaeda I don't know.

That article doesn't provide proof, it merely states that another paper had evidence of a link- not utterly convincing in my opinion. It doesn't even give a link through to that article. And if there were any actual proof of a link between Al Quada and Hussein, all papers would put it on the front page and TV would broadcast it for days, don't you think?

The only way to help those people is to remove the ones opressing them.

Tell that to the average leader of a nation and he'll tell you you can't just do that. Just look at what happened after Iraq- relations between the US and Russia, Germany, France and China have deteriorated. During the Cold War, the mutual hatred between the US and the SU was only fueled every time one of them invaded another country. The Cold War is over, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to anger half the world.

Dude_Doc:

But they place themselves. Their countries do not have any control! And what about all the people who will die while we try to do this? Sadly, force is the only way of getting rid of these societies. Pretty much like Hitler, he wasn't stopped with diplomacy or talk, but by force, and force alone.

It was the victors from World War 1 that forced huge reparation payments on Germany, creating the miserable situation in wich Hitler managed to rise to power. In most present date dictatures the western world (or former Soviet Union) had some influence in the rise of these regimes, or at least could have prevented them from rising in the first place. Preventing is better then healing.

[nemafakei]

Acriku, the telling point is whereby expected gain is greater than expected loss (use pessimistic figures for safety).

If 100 men are likely to die to save one man, then it is almost definitely an immoral action, bar very extraneous circumstances.

And if you have the option of waging a war to cure symptoms or using your resources to sort out fundamental causes of problems in the world, I would choose the latter. This is simple logic.

[Acriku]

That's sofa couch morality, but fair enough.

[DukeLeto]

It was the mass murder of a huge number of people that represented an entire society; the highest of highest achievers in the WORLD are the only ones who made it into the WTC. They were murdered because of who they were. They had done nothing to provoke such an attack. How the hell is this NOT genocide?

Why some people deny the Holocause I don't know. Why some people consider 9/11 a "big whoop" I don't know.

Why some people FALSELY deny positive links between Hussein and al Qaeda I don't know.

Your commie-driven hatred for the president your country elected won't change the fact that what happened in the wake of 9/11 has been good and long-needed. The freedom of millions and millions will have to take prescedence over few civillian casualties caused mostly by the opposition.

Allow me to define "genocide" for you:

gen

[Acriku]

Bush wasn't elected with a "yay or nay" method, Bush got a lot less votes (almost 500,000 I think) but that doesn't matter because the whole point is to get as many representatives as possible. You get the state, you get the corresponding representatives. That's why the runners go for the top states (most reps) like Florida, California, etc. It just so happened that the system allowed Bush to get more reps but less votes.

[SurlyPIG]

9/11 was a sad day, but far overrated. "genocide" is a term that refers to the extermination of an entire race, and if the killing of a "mere" 2,000 people from a nation with over 250 million people qualifies as genocide then traffic does as well because many, many more people die from traffic then from an occasional terrorist attack. The only reason there's such a huff about it is that for the first time since the revolution America was attacked on their own soil.

"genocide; the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group"

This includes terrorism. Just because they didn't kill every American doesn't mean its not genocide. Not all Jews were killed in WWII, does that mean it's genocide? The very notion of suggesting that there is a "minimum kill" number before something becomes genocide is like suggesting that it is somehow less wrong when fewer people die. If they had the capabilities of killing every American, they would. And they'd kill every westerner and every non-muslim too. Automobile collisions may kill more people but as I said look at HOW they died. Every time you climb in a car you drive off knowing full well that you might not get out alive. As such, you drive with certain strategy, but there is always an X factor of other people and other conditions and you know this. Again, the comparison suggests that it isn't wrong or that it's no big deal and doesn't matter. The last thing you mentioned isn't the only reason by any means, but it is true. Why don't you ask some of the older people in your country what it's like to be attacked on your own soil, or have you forgotten? Let them tell you what it's like.

BTW, pay more attention to detail. More than 3000 people died on 9/11 not 2000. Bali was upwards of 400. And there are at least 295 million people in the US, not 250.

That article doesn't provide proof, it merely states that another paper had evidence of a link- not utterly convincing in my opinion. It doesn't even give a link through to that article. And if there were any actual proof of a link between Al Quada and Hussein, all papers would put it on the front page and TV would broadcast it for days, don't you think?

It was front page for me. One of the first thing mentioned on the stories. Maybe left-winged media is to blame? I don't know if what the media is like in Holland so I won't comment on it but I can't imagine it being any better than British media. Why you didn't hear of this I'm not sure. Only you can answer that, really...

I can understand a concern over bias, but its not as if they're making it up. I actually saw the article from the Sunday Times but didn't bookmark it so I can't exactly give you a link. Even with an interperetive slant, just look at the facts instead;

"Papers found Saturday by journalists working for the Sunday Telegraph reveal that an al Qaeda envoy met with officials in Baghdad in March 1998, the newspaper reported."

EDIT : As luck should have it, Gob just posted the original source from the Sunday Telegraph.!

Tell that to the average leader of a nation and he'll tell you you can't just do that. Just look at what happened after Iraq- relations between the US and Russia, Germany, France and China have deteriorated. During the Cold War, the mutual hatred between the US and the SU was only fueled every time one of them invaded another country. The Cold War is over, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to anger half the world.

It's not like I said we should go after every dictator in the world. On the contrary. If we do that, we're not a lot different than they are. But we must if they pose a threat and break international law, both of which Hussein's regime did. There must be a point when you say no more and fight back with reasonable force.

[Gobalopper]

Getting back to the original topic, here is another opinion on the subject:

Bad Reporting in Baghdad

[Anathema]

BTW, pay more attention to detail. More than 3000 people died on 9/11 not 2000. Bali was upwards of 400. And there are at least 295 million people in the US, not 250.

No, 3000 was the first estimation. I don't know the exact number, but I do remember it was less then 2000.

I didn't know the exact population of America (I remember someone saying it was about 250 m.), but "over 250 million" does cover 295 million.

Read through the article, and it doesn't mean anything. It mentions that the both of them had contact with eachother, but not that Sadam actually provided aid of any kind to Al Quada. The title, " The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden" is obviously an exaggeration.

Also, I'm sure a lot of people would like to see the evidence the US claimed to have before the war.

[DukeLeto]

Bush wasn't elected with a "yay or nay" method, Bush got a lot less votes (almost 500,000 I think) but that doesn't matter because the whole point is to get as many representatives as possible. You get the state, you get the corresponding representatives. That's why the runners go for the top states (most reps) like Florida, California, etc. It just so happened that the system allowed Bush to get more reps but less votes.

I know how the system works. And it's a really bad system. It needs to be fixed before something like this happens again.

[Acriku]

Bad system? Not really, once you learn why it's like that (I remember discussing it with Edric in an old thread).

[DukeLeto]

If a man not wanted in office by the people is put in office, how can it be a good system? It's not a democracy if the people don't have any say!

[Gobalopper]

I thought the US was a republic though? Which is the reason behind the system it uses. Both systems have +'s and -'s. With overall votes you could say everyone gets a say but with the current system smaller states still have some power they may not normally have.

If the election style is so horrible why aren't the Democrats suggesting alternatives?

[Acriku]

The U.S. is a Socialist-Capitalist Democratic Republic, a little socialist, a lot of capitalist, and both ademocracy and a republic.

[DukeLeto]

a little socialist

How do you figure that? We don't even have socialized medicine, for crying out loud!

[Gobalopper]

Welfare would be one example.