What's the Difference?

[Arrian]

*nods in agreement with Dino*

Most of the world mourned, my ass.

-Arrian

[Kramerman]

*nods in agreement with Arrian*

[orange]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Unfortunately it doesn't work this way (at least not yet). The good of humanity is achieved through a healthy balance of nation-states. It's just human nature. Actually, it's the same reason Communism doesn't work.

It is most certainly NOT human nature. Nations and states are a phenomenon that evolved. They did not always exist.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I'll take issue with that.

In what way? I didn't explain myself well, but I believe, whenever there is a major catastophe, or murder, etc. people believe it is a tragedy, even in different counties. It goes beyond the boundaries of nations.
My opinion is that orange's statement

when we stop looking at people of the world as nationalities, your question will resolve itself. The death of anyone will be considered a horrible tragedy.

Is already true, to soem extent. People still mourn loss of life, even if in a country different to their own.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Arrian
Most of the world mourned, my ass.

Most of the Western world then. There were ceremonies, silences, condolance books, etc. all the usual signs of rememberance and mourning, in many European countries. There was a massive outporing of grief evident in much of the UK, or at least that was what I witnessed. I do not believe that it was all fake, from what I saw, there was much genuine regret and grief about what had happened.

[Kramerman]

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.

Well, in a war there are sides. You either pick a side or you dont pick either. If you want the US to win, then you would like it if they accomplished the objectives with minimal casualties on their side, and depending on your outlook on life, minimal casualties or maximum casualties on the Iraqies. If you want Iraq to win, then you would like the same outcome, only reversed. If you dont want either to win, then all you can do is hope war is prevented. If you are indifferent, then you dont really care who wins. If you are ambivalent, then... i dunno, you'd just have to make up your mind or deal with it.

My point is, by wishing overwheling casualties on the Americans, you are in effect taking the Iraqi side, and someone was well within their right to call you a traitor. Of course this is all relative to wich side you are on, to me your remarks are indeed trecherous, but to Saddam they are patriotic. So i could care less wtf you say on such a relative topic. I dont really care what side you are on, tho it is kinda frustrating that you would want the Iraqis to win, but you are living in America and are getting all the benefits of such . Thats just kinda wierd to me.

If you really cared about human life, then you should be opposed to war in full, instead of wishing death upon one side, you should wish no death on anybody.
That is what is wrong with your statement. Q.E.D.

Kman

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Re: What's the Difference?

Originally posted by David Floyd


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.

Your two scenarios don't match. If there's a war, it's OK for soldiers of both sides to kill each other, if you want to word it crudely. Personally, I'd call it "a grim inevitability".

The second? It's OK to wish the first because it denotes a highly successful campaign, if you want Saddam toppled. It's only OK to wish the second if you want Saddam to stay in power.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by orange


It is most certainly NOT human nature. Nations and states are a phenomenon that evolved. They did not always exist.

Sort of.

Humans, by nature, are a very social species. This is most likely because early man, as does modern man, realize there is safety in numbers and success in organization. Nation states are a higher echelon of the social evolution of what began with probably family units, and expanded into clans, bands and tribes, which of course in some places evolved further into city-states and empires/kingdoms/nation-states.

So, in a way, the nations are a form of human's very inherent nature to organize themselves.
If it weren't nation-states, it would be city-states, and if it weren't that, it would just be some other form of "team". Regardless of their form, whenever there are "teams", there will be conflict.

Kman

[Drogue]

Re: Re: What's the Difference?

Originally posted by Kramerman
If you really cared about human life, then you should be opposed to war in full, instead of wishing death upon one side, you should wish no death on anybody.
That is what is wrong with your statement. Q.E.D.

Isn't that what his statement says? Far from being onesided, he asked "why is it OK for US soldiers to kill Iraqis, but not OK for Iraqis to kill US soldiers?". This says nothing as to if he supports war or not, but that if it is OK for one side to kill another, why is it not OK for the otherside to kill that side. What is the difference between the two? As the title suggests. From his other posts I think it is obvious he does not wish death upon anybody.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Drogue

Most of the Western world then. There were ceremonies, silences, condolance books, etc. all the usual signs of rememberance and mourning, in many European countries. There was a massive outporing of grief evident in much of the UK, or at least that was what I witnessed. I do not believe that it was all fake, from what I saw, there was much genuine regret and grief about what had happened.

This is true. the previous statement of "most of the world" is not. Though most gave their sentiments, it was insincere from a lot of them. Im just sure Fidel Castro cried himself to sleep that night...

But it matters not, as I wouldnt expect him, or many of those who gave their condolences to be sincere, as this is the real world, and its a jungle out there. Or more acurately, a metaphorical game of Smear the Queer, and America is the... err... queer, i suppose...
hmm...
ok, here is one better. The world as we know it right now is a game of King of the Hill, and America is the king of that hill... ahh, much better. We would all like it to be a game of House or Tea Party, and for the boys out there a game of...um... hmm... the most peaceful, and least disharmonious boy game i can think of is hide and go seek...

But the reality is it isnt a peaceful game.

Kman

[Kramerman]

Re: Re: Re: What's the Difference?

Originally posted by Drogue

From his other posts I think it is obvious he does not wish death upon anybody.

That is not what I gathered from this:

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.

Originally posted by Drogue

This says nothing as to if he supports war or not, but that if it is OK for one side to kill another, why is it not OK for the otherside to kill that side. What is the difference between the two?

I agree completely, this does not say in anyway that he wants war, nor did i intend to send the message that this is what i thought he thinks. I merely spelled out in my previous post that wanting one side to win or lose or not caring wtf happens is all relative.

But his statements do say that if there is a war, he would rather see America lose (by taking thousands or even tens of thousands of casualties). This contradicts his own statements that a life is a life and it does not matter what side loses it, because he says he would rather the Americans lose.

He says he doesnt see the difference between an american death and an Iraqi death. This is his opinion, and he is entirely entitled to it, as i am entitled to mine. However if he sees no difference, then why would he want the Iraqis to win? That just sounds like he just took the Iraqi side, and that he indeed cares more about their lives than Americans. And that leads me to ask, why is it more ok for Iraqis to kill Americans, but not ok for Americans to kill Iraqis? ive ambiguously answered this already, saying that the answer is relative. But when Mr. Floyd asked his question, he contridicted himself.

Kman

[David Floyd]

Kramerman,

My point is, by wishing overwheling casualties on the Americans, you are in effect taking the Iraqi side,

True.

and someone was well within their right to call you a traitor.

Perhaps, but as I told jimmytrick, the label "traitor" doesn't especially bother me. Right and wrong is the issue for me.

Of course this is all relative to wich side you are on, to me your remarks are indeed trecherous,

Again, if a rightwing American thinks I'm a traitor, I won't lose any sleep over it.

tho it is kinda frustrating that you would want the Iraqis to win, but you are living in America and are getting all the benefits of such . Thats just kinda wierd to me.

If you were living in Nazi Germany, and living fairly well, would it be wrong for you to wish the defeat of Nazi Germany when the made unprovoked attacks and were generally aggressive? Because that's what the US is doing.

If you really cared about human life, then you should be opposed to war in full, instead of wishing death upon one side, you should wish no death on anybody.

I've said repeatedly here and elsewhere I don't want a war at all. But if there is a war, as in any war, I would hope that the side in the right wins. In this case, it would be Iraq, because the US would be making an unprovoked act of aggression, and starting the killing.

But his statements do say that if there is a war, he would rather see America lose (by taking thousands or even tens of thousands of casualties). This contradicts his own statements that a life is a life and it does not matter what side loses it, because he says he would rather the Americans lose.

Actually, I was making two different arguments.

The first argument was that the side in the right is the side that I want to win in a war.

The second argument was in response to certain people who seemed to think it was OK for Americans to kill Iraqis but not the other way around, without regards to the rightness or wrongness of the conflict - they were just implying a blanket position.

However if he sees no difference, then why would he want the Iraqis to win? That just sounds like he just took the Iraqi side, and that he indeed cares more about their lives than Americans.

It's not so much that I care more about one person's life than that of another, it's that in a war, I don't want the "bad guys" to win. If that means some of the "bad guy" soldiers have to die, that's certainly better than having the "good guys" lose the war.

But in reality, of course, I don't support war anyway, in any case, except in self defense - and if people only went to war in self defense, then my position on killing in war wouldn't even be an issue.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Drogue
In what way?

In everyway. The pervailing sentiment was that "You had it coming, you arrogant bastards."

[Kramerman]

Again, if a rightwing American thinks I'm a traitor, I won't lose any sleep over it.

I tend to despise extremes. I am actually a centrist, not righty, nor lefty, nor libratarian, nor fascist.

If you were living in Nazi Germany, and living fairly well, would it be wrong for you to wish the defeat of Nazi Germany when the made unprovoked attacks and were generally aggressive? Because that's what the US is doing.

I never said it was wrong for you to live in and probably profit from the very country you seem to scorn, i just said it was wierd. I would add now that it even seems a little hipocritical...besides, you are free to leave whenever you wish. Citizens of Nazi Germany were unwilling, even if they were able or wanted to leave. Thru strategic bombing, many had lost everything and couldnt move if they wanted. Others didnt want to leave, they wanted to realize the glory of the third reich. And many more were unwilling because they were so heavily propagandized as to what the "allied monsters" would do to them and their children if they were "captured".

And dont get me started on unprovoked attacks... Ive made my statements toward Iraq too many times on this forum already. All i will say is now there is not enough info nor support to act, but that is not to say that when/if there is enough, a preimptive strike is not justified. But at this point, i dont want to thread jack on the futile attempt to change anyones mind. We are all stubborn bastards

I've said repeatedly here and elsewhere I don't want a war at all. But if there is a war, as in any war, I would hope that the side in the right wins. In this case, it would be Iraq, because the US would be making an unprovoked act of aggression, and starting the killing.

again, im not gonna get started on the whole "iraq being in the right" stuff

Actually, I was making two different arguments.

The first argument was that the side in the right is the side that I want to win in a war.

The second argument was in response to certain people who seemed to think it was OK for Americans to kill Iraqis but not the other way around, without regards to the rightness or wrongness of the conflict - they were just implying a blanket position.

ok

But in reality, of course, I don't support war anyway, in any case, except in self defense - and if people only went to war in self defense, then my position on killing in war wouldn't even be an issue.

indeed. The arguement can be made that the United States is in fact on the defensive, and any military action is merely in her defense. For another thread perhaps...

Kman

[David Floyd]

All i will say is now there is not enough info nor support to act, but that is not to say that when/if there is enough, a preimptive strike is not justified.

So, basically, right and wrong should be determined through a poll?

again, im not gonna get started on the whole "iraq being in the right" stuff

If you accept the premise that starting a war is always wrong, as I do, then Iraq must be in the right in this case.

Not to say the regime is particularly moral, just saying that it won't be the one to start the war.

The arguement can be made that the United States is in fact on the defensive, and any military action is merely in her defense.

Let's see. Iraq has not ever attacked the US, so how could the US be figthing a defensive war? A defensive war is NOT defined as "invading a country which has not attacked you".