What's the Difference?

[Ben Kenobi]

"Saddam Hussein is a cancer. Think of an allied military operation against him as chemotherapy- it's brutal, dangerous and very unpleasant, but may represent the best long-term prospect if the patient can survive it."

Lazarus, I like your analogy between war and chemotherapy. War is like chemotherapy in that perfectly healthy cells are killed in order to get at the cancerous ones. However, chemotherapy is undertaken only to save the whole patient, whose death kills all the cells as well.

In this, the perfectly healthy cells are the people of Iraq. They are not the enemies of the US, though they will be the majority of the casulties. Have enough innocents died in Iraq to justify killing more innocents in a war?

A fourth option? All I can think of is sponsoring an uprising in Iraq among the dissidents. If Hussein is so terrible to his people, then many should dislike his reign.

[Arrian]

A fourth option? All I can think of is sponsoring an uprising in Iraq among the dissidents. If Hussein is so terrible to his people, then many should dislike his reign.

Wasn't this tried shortly after the Gulf War? They rose up, and got slaughtered. Appeals for assistance were turned down.

-Arrian

[David Floyd]

And despite all of these posts, and Slowwhand's chest-thumping, I still have not seen an adequate answer to my question.

This thread is NOT about whether or not we should attack Iraq - it's about why it's OK to wish death on Iraqi soldiers but not on American soldiers.

[Drogue]

Depends on your patriotism and moral beliefs. To my way of thinking, it isn't. Both are equally wrong.

[Arrian]

I think wishing death on people is pretty ****ed up, whether they are American or Iraqi.

If there is a war between America and Iraq, I will hope for a quick US victory, being American and all. I'd prefer there is no war, though.

-Arrian

[SlowwHand]

David. Nobody likes war. Nobody likes civilians to die.
But I damned sure want Iraqi soldiers to die before I want U.S. soldiers or any allied soldiers to die.

Your opening post in this thread was disgusting.
I know, you don't get it; and that's the driving force behind my alleged "chest-thumping".

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by David Floyd
And despite all of these posts, and Slowwhand's chest-thumping, I still have not seen an adequate answer to my question.

This thread is NOT about whether or not we should attack Iraq - it's about why it's OK to wish death on Iraqi soldiers but not on American soldiers.

You still have not addressed my posts. To wish death on Americans is to indirectly wish death on Iraqi soldiers and civilians.

[Ned]

Drogue, What is your opinion of England's declaration of war on Germany in both WWI and WWII? In both cases, Germany had not attacked England. In both cases, Germany had attacked a smaller country and England went to that country's defense.

Was England the aggressor given there was no attack on England?

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by tandeetaylor


The only problems with that statement are that the only country ever to have used nuclear weapons and the only country threatening to kill great numbers of people is the United States, logistically Iraq could not attack America, only American troops that are in places they shouldn't be, Iraq was never "belligerent" toward the United States until we decided we should defend Kuwait, and, as far as I know, Iraq has never threatened to attack the United States.

You are completely and intentionally distorting the truth throughout your post tdtaylor.

The United States use of nuclear weapons came in the midst of the most terrible conflict in the history of mankind. It's use was specifically to force Japan to surrender in the face of overwhelming force. The use of nukes saved lives, both American and Japanese. And please don't quote the conspiracy theory that Japan was trying to negoitiate peace and Truman just used the bomb to punish them for Pearl.

Not that the actions of Japan didn't deserve to be punished.

Secondly, the United States is not threatening to great numbers of people. The military is being tasked to produce a swift campaign of narrow focus that will limit civilian casualties as is practicable. Remember that Saddam is known to force civilians to populate military targets so that he can use their deaths for propaganda purposes. It is self evident that fewer Iraqis will ultimately die if the US invades than if Saddam remains in power.

Then you say "logistically Iraq could not attack America". This statement is, well, the most kind judgement I can render is that it is a foolish statement. If Bin Laden can strike us at home Saddam surely can. And he did try to have our 41st president killed.

American troops are positioned in many places around the world for one reason. To maintain regional and ultimately global stability. If American troops were to be withdrawn to within our borders, including our carriers and subs, there can be no doubt that the world would be engulfed in total war within a generation.

As for defending Kuwait, are you not aware that but for the military power at the command of the US, dozens of countries around the world would simply be rolled up by more powerful neighbors. I guess that's what you think should happen. Personally, with the Soviet Union gone, the US is the very foundation, yes, the last best hope to maintain stability as the world matures into more progressive goverance.

[Ned]

Originally posted by David Floyd
And despite all of these posts, and Slowwhand's chest-thumping, I still have not seen an adequate answer to my question.

This thread is NOT about whether or not we should attack Iraq - it's about why it's OK to wish death on Iraqi soldiers but not on American soldiers.

David, I think most of us would prefer that there be few or no casualties on either side.

However, realistically, the only way for casualties to be minimized if war does erupt is for American and the UK to win quickly. If we "lose," it could only be because Iraq had become like Vietnam or Afghanistan, a bleeding sore that we could not win. But, as we know at least in the case of Vietnam, we killed at least a million Vietnamese while losing 55,000. No one should wish such a victory on Iraq. That is truly is immoral.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by David Floyd
And despite all of these posts, and Slowwhand's chest-thumping, I still have not seen an adequate answer to my question.

This thread is NOT about whether or not we should attack Iraq - it's about why it's OK to wish death on Iraqi soldiers but not on American soldiers.

Mature people, David, do not wish for the death of anyone but living and breathing in the real world, rather than the theoretic, we recognize that a pricked finger bleeds. The Iraqi people have been subjugated by a foul tyrant. This is a failure of the Iraqi people on one level, and a soource of empathy for them on another. Sin requires a blood sacrifice and while lambs die in silence in your antiseptic theoretical world David, in the real world their screams indict the killer and the face they will put to him will be Saddam's.

The future hangs on the hope that one brave and noble man will trade his life for that of the madman and redeem his country.

Saddam wouldn't last week here, at least in the South.

[David Floyd]

Arrian,

If there is a war between America and Iraq, I will hope for a quick US victory, being American and all. I'd prefer there is no war, though.

Yes, I'm sure that many people have said that throughout history. Does that make the aggressor right, just because they happen to be your country?

As Stephen Decatur said, "My country, right or wrong", right? I mean, THAT'S never caused any problems throughout history

Slowwhand,

But I damned sure want Iraqi soldiers to die before I want U.S. soldiers or any allied soldiers to die.

But that doesn't make any sense, unless it's just because of patriotism. If you want to claim patriotism, that's fine, but patriotism is not a notion I agree with. Further, if that is your reasoning, then patriotic Iraqis are just as "correct" as you are in wishing death upon Americans.

jimmytrick,

The United States use of nuclear weapons came in the midst of the most terrible conflict in the history of mankind. It's use was specifically to force Japan to surrender in the face of overwhelming force. The use of nukes saved lives, both American and Japanese.

All irrelevant. Intentionally targeting civilians is murder, and murder, as I hope you can agree is wrong. Therefore, it was wrong to murder Japanese (and German) civilians. Simple as that.

Secondly, the United States is not threatening to great numbers of people.

Tell that to the Vietnamese

If Bin Laden can strike us at home Saddam surely can.

If you mean Saddam can order suicide bombings, then I'm sure you are correct. If you are claiming the state of Iraq can attack the United States, you are unquestionably wrong.

American troops are positioned in many places around the world for one reason. To maintain regional and ultimately global stability.

Wrong. They are there primarily to serve US interests, whatever those interests may be, and always have been.

If American troops were to be withdrawn to within our borders, including our carriers and subs, there can be no doubt that the world would be engulfed in total war within a generation.

That's pretty laughable, seeing as how the US has fought in or started more wars than anyone else this century.

As for defending Kuwait, are you not aware that but for the military power at the command of the US, dozens of countries around the world would simply be rolled up by more powerful neighbors.

1)Examples?
2)I doubt it.
3)So what?

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Have you been possessed by Fez? Because that was one serious BAM.

Sloww has been showing quite a bit of Fez-like behaviour in this thread, hasn't he? Perhaps he will be the heir to Fez's legacy of reactionary BAMing.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Ned
Drogue, What is your opinion of England's declaration of war on Germany in both WWI and WWII? In both cases, Germany had not attacked England. In both cases, Germany had attacked a smaller country and England went to that country's defense.

Was England the aggressor given there was no attack on England?

I do not believe so. England acted to an attack on itself and it's allies. England was directly threatened by Hitler, in that Hitler had declared that he wanted to take the whole of Europe. Moveover, we had an alliance with Belgium, that dictated that if they were attacked, we would defend them. England had 2 reasons to declare war on Germany: To defend itself, in that Hitler was willing and able to attack England, and therefore we needed to defend ourselves against the aggressor; and to defend its allies, such as France and Belgium, that were already under attack and would lose without our aid. English troops did not attack Germany, or it's allies, until English troops had been attacked by Germany. I agree with the UN defence of Kuwait, however I think they went too far in attacking Iraq. Since the Gulf War, Iraq has not attacked the USA or one of their allies (unless I'm very badly mistaken) and as such, a US attack on Iraq would be an act of invasion as opposed to an act of defence. That is why I am against it.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Drogue

I do not believe so. England acted to an attack on itself and it's allies. England was directly threatened by Hitler, in that Hitler had declared that he wanted to take the whole of Europe. Moveover, we had an alliance with Belgium, that dictated that if they were attacked, we would defend them. England had 2 reasons to declare war on Germany: To defend itself, in that Hitler was willing and able to attack England, and therefore we needed to defend ourselves against the aggressor; and to defend its allies, such as France and Belgium, that were already under attack and would lose without our aid. English troops did not attack Germany, or it's allies, until English troops had been attacked by Germany. I agree with the UN defence of Kuwait, however I think they went too far in attacking Iraq. Since the Gulf War, Iraq has not attacked the USA or one of their allies (unless I'm very badly mistaken) and as such, a US attack on Iraq would be an act of invasion as opposed to an act of defence. That is why I am against it.

Why was England justified in invading Germany in WWI and II if it was England that had declared war on Germany because Germany had attacked an ally? Why not stop when Belgium and Poland were liberated? At least duing WWII, Germany tried to make peace with England throughout the war. Germany made it clear that it did not want war with England. Germany made it clear that it was only responding to attacks by England on Germany.

By your own analysis in the case of the US and Iraq, England was unjustified in invading Germany during either WWI or WWII.