What's the Difference?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
If you don't consider the widespread use of nerve gas on an unarmed civilian population as evil then I really don't give much concern for your moral standards because you're clearly mad.

I haven't seen any evidence of that, and I don't consider anything 'evil'. Quite simply, I do not think we can judge what is evil or not, since it depends on the individuals moral code, thus I do not consider it a concept. I do not agree with Saddam, I do not like what he does, but I will never brand someone evil. All they are is a combination of their parent's genes and their experiences, most in early life. I don't see how you can hold someone accountable for that. You can hold him accountable for his actions, and can brand an action an 'evil' action at a pinch, but to brand a person evil. He can control his actions, he cannot control his personality.

[MrFun]

I'm surprised the United States never used the School of America to train terrorists to crash planes into tall buildings, before the Al-Quieda thought of doing it.

[Arrian]

I'm surprised you haven't figured out that no one finds that topic very interesting. What is there to say about it besides it's a crappy thing to have around and that we should shut it down? Not much. Boring discussion.

-Arrian

[MrFun]

So no one is upset that the United States sponsors terrorism?

No one is upset that we're bull****ting ourselves with the war against terrorism, while United States sponsors terrorism?

Then those people not interested, probably don't value human life very much, not to mention having consistent values within our own government.

[Arrian]

Read my prior post.

-Arrian

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Drogue

I haven't seen any evidence of that, and I don't consider anything 'evil'. Quite simply, I do not think we can judge what is evil or not, since it depends on the individuals moral code, thus I do not consider it a concept. I do not agree with Saddam, I do not like what he does, but I will never brand someone evil. All they are is a combination of their parent's genes and their experiences, most in early life. I don't see how you can hold someone accountable for that. You can hold him accountable for his actions, and can brand an action an 'evil' action at a pinch, but to brand a person evil. He can control his actions, he cannot control his personality.

"We are what we do repeatedly"- Aristotle.

He's evil.

[Drogue]

Ok. I can understand where Aristotle is coming from, however I do not agree. I think we know many thing snow that Aristotle did not have access to then, and such even he may be of different opinion now. Anyway, feel free to believe that, but I shall never condemn anyone as being evil.

[SlowwHand]

Have you already posted how you participate in any organization to better things, Mr Fun ?
Did I miss that, I guess ?
Have you said what you would do as alternatives ?
You probably did, and I missed that also.
How about addressing the woefully late date that this action is taking place?
Dang. I got to get different glasses, I guess.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Drogue

Yes, I believe they should have stopped there. Indeed they tried. Haig I think to was (unless I've got the wrong) wanted us to be lenient on Germany, to keep it as a trading ally, and was against complete invasion and occupation. Sadly, it was not his decision though. However I don't think it was a massive failing that they did, like I don't think it was a massive failing that the UN did not stop at defending Kuwaitm, although I do feel it should not have been done. A difference between Germany and Iraq is that Germany was a threat to all fighting against her, whereas Iraq posed no threat to the USA or UK. I do understand why we went to Iraq, but I feel the UNs mandate only goes so far as defense. If Iraq had invaded the US, I would feel better about invading Iraq.

Germany tried to make peace with England? Not as far as I've read, if you have a source I would be interested. Moreover, we had alliances that we would enforce the neutrality of Belgium. I would have been in favour of stopping at Germany's borders, but even those were disputed at the time. WW1 I'm afraid I know little about so cannot really comment.

Does the name Rudolph Hess mean anything to you?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Have you already posted how you participate in any organization to better things, Mr Fun ?
Did I miss that, I guess ?
Have you said what you would do as alternatives ?
You probably did, and I missed that also.
How about addressing the woefully late date that this action is taking place?
Dang. I got to get different glasses, I guess.

I have read about the protests that were carried out in the past by other groups against the School of America.

If you can point me to websites of these protest groups, I will be interested in learning more about what I can do to protest the United State's sponsorship of terrorism.

[Vesayen]

Re: What's the Difference?

Originally posted by David Floyd
In the latest thread about Iraq, I made the comment that if the US attacks Iraq, I hope that the US loses, or at least takes a massive military beating.

Obviously, I got jumped on because of that comment. I even got called a traitor (oh no, not THAT ).

But my question is, why is it OK for US soldiers to kill Iraqis, but not OK for Iraqis to kill US soldiers? Why is it OK to wish that the US conducts a bloodless (for the US) campaign, destroying the Iraqi military (and incidentally killing thousands), but not OK to wish that the US gets frustrated in its aggression, and takes several thousand (several tens of thousands, even) of casualties?

I just don't see the difference. Maybe someone can help me out here.

I will never respond to your posts again, or read threads you start.......................I cannot imagine what could possibly fuel such stupidity.

[David Floyd]

I will never respond to your posts again, or read threads you start.......................I cannot imagine what could possibly fuel such stupidity.

Yet another person who can't make an argument, and as such retires in shame

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

And you still have yet to respond.

[David Floyd]

Respond to what? No one has actually addressed my initial question, that I have seen. The majority of the posts directed against me are simple attempts to justify a war on Iraq, which is not what I'm asking.

[Blackwidow24]

you are a dork!

BRING IT