Announcement

**Al B. Sure!** · January 4, 2003, 02:26

Why would you possibly want your country to have difficulties? why would you possibly want your countrymen to die?

you may not like government policies but you are still an American...

**David Floyd** · January 4, 2003, 02:27

Why would you possibly want your country to have difficulties? why would you possibly want your countrymen to die?

Why would I want innocent Iraqis to die? If it comes down to it, I don't care what the nationality of the soldier is, I'd rather see the aggressor die than the poor bastard who got conscripted into the army, doesn't want to be there, and in any case, is not attacking anyone.

you may not like government policies but you are still an American...

Relevance?

**Al B. Sure!** · January 4, 2003, 02:31

David:

Would you want your family to have difficulties paying the bills? of course you don't want your neighbours to have difficulties either but if one family got to have problems, it's better them than your family right?

thanks

**David Floyd** · January 4, 2003, 02:34

Would you want your family to have difficulties paying the bills? of course you don't want your neighbours to have difficulties either but if one family got to have problems, it's better them than your family right?

Three points:

1)It's better for other people to have difficulties from a purely selfish perspective. Objectively speaking, it's the same.

2)My family vs. another family having trouble paying bills is not analogous to the US/Iraq situation, because the two families are not causing each other to have trouble. My family, for example, isn't breaking into my neighbors house and robbing him to prevent him from paying bills, for example. The two are not interconnected.

3)Silly example, with an emotional appeal. It just doesn't make logical sense.

**David Floyd** · January 4, 2003, 02:35

Oh, and 4)In what way is the US government my family? I feel no absolute personal loyalty or compassion towards the US government, whereas I do to my family.

**monkspider** · January 4, 2003, 02:40

You actually make some pretty good points Dave.

Of course, I hope that somehow neither Yanquis nor Iraqis die. But that is looking less and less likely by the day.

**David Floyd** · January 4, 2003, 02:42

Of course, I hope that somehow neither Yanquis nor Iraqis die.

Agreed.

**Al B. Sure!** · January 4, 2003, 02:42

Dave:

Leave the country if you got no loyalty to the United States...

**Al B. Sure!** · January 4, 2003, 02:44

how about this Dave...

Can we assume you are against Saddam Hussein's dictatorship?

**monkspider** · January 4, 2003, 02:48

Albert: Loyalty should come first and foremost to humanity in general rather than just a certain group of people. I believe that all people are equally part of God's creation, but whether you agree with me or not on that point, you will likely agree with me that nation-states, as we know them, are no more than articificial constructions of transcendent institutions of power.

**Al B. Sure!** · January 4, 2003, 02:54

monkspider:

I'm taking this a different direction now... assuming you are against Saddam Hussein's dictatorship and that (despite your leftist beliefs) an American-supported Iraqi republic would be at least an improvemnt over Saddam... then the deaths of a certain number of Iraqis can be minimal compared to the greater good of deposing a dictator

thanks

**Imran Siddiqui** · January 4, 2003, 02:59

Hmmm, I have to agree with Albert Speer.

Also, I find it interesting that Floyd would rather see the troops of a dictator trimph over the troops of a republic. Does this say something about his underlying political beliefs?

**Al B. Sure!** · January 4, 2003, 03:02

no Imran... Floyd is completely a libertarian nut...

he is looking at this from an objective standpoint saying that a death is a death and a dead Iraqi matters just as much as a dead American... that is true except those Iraqis who die are dying so that millions of other Iraqis may have freer lives... it is unfortunate that blood must be spilled but if it's the only way... so be it.

thanks

**Ned** · January 4, 2003, 03:08

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.

Why don't you simply get a job at a munitions factory and rig explosives to kill US soldiers, sailors and airmen. Or better yet, why don't you cut parachute webbings as well. If there were enough like you killing Americans from within, we would not need to have Iraqi's do it.

BTW, David, even if you think such actions would be moral, you would quickly be beaten to death by enraged mobs of average Americans who hold a different view.

Announcement

What's the Difference?

What's the Difference?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment