American/British Assassination of the Leader of Iraq
POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Friday, June 25, 2004 02:25
VIEWED: 14132
PAGE 2 of 12
If you supply resources of money or information to remove someone, and you don't specify how, then you are partially responsible.
"I didn't know that by giving them weapons, money, and intel on their enemy, that they'd kill him" is a lame ass response.
If you don't specify how the resources you give are to be used, then you might as well attach a note that says, "By any means necessary."
So, yes, if the US or Brit governments supplied money to persons who did the deed, they are partially responsible. (Unless you want to pretend that the governments involved are very, very naive and thought the people that they supplied with resources were going to print and distribute fliers and political advertisements.)
Now, maybe you support the assasination. Maybe you don't. But neither position requires that you stick your head in the sand and pretend it's not what it is.
--Anthony
"Liberty should not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So by your agruement, If some of us felt Bush was acting against our own best interests, and we decided to send Bin Laden some cash to help him act against Bush......... This would be all well and good.
Try to remember all actions can act in both directions
" Thats not fair !!!!
I didn't even have a soul when I did that!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
If that seems cold to you, it is probably because you are unfamiliar with the 100-150 million innocent civilians killed within Soviet Gulags, starved to death by Soviet politics/economics or simply taken out, shot and buried in mass graves by the Soviets. And that’s just the people they killed in Soviet Russia.
I just got back from being gone all day, so I'll reply, sorry to bump this back up- But I'm curious as to why you'd throw this obvious insult into a friendly discussion- This is a fallacy, for starters, and it's insulting at the least- You're implying that I cant see the big picture because I'm uninformed about what went on in the Soviet Union during the Cold War and the years leading up to it-
Sad to say, this is incorrect, and I hate it when people on this thread do this- It's not like we all wear badges saying, this is what my education level is, lets talk like this- I talk on these threads like I'd have a conversation, not academically- Trust me, I know the facts; my minor was in the Soviet/Post-Soviet political system-I'm not disagreeing with you that the Cold War Soviet regime was not a good thing, I agree completely- (for a good start, read McAuley's book on the Soviets, and I'd say literature-wise read Koestler's Darkness at Noon)-But we're paying now for our actions in stopping them, namely funding Afgheni rebels and Irani/Iraqi insurgents- Best way to fight atheistic Communism is to put radical religious groups in power, no doubt about it (look at what we did in S.America in the 70's as an example of regime change)-
But the facts are, that when you fund murderous rebels, even for a good cause -and supporting Democracy is the greatest cause there is- you are still condoning murder- Is one murder worse than 100 million? Not unless you're that murder victim's family or supporters, then by God it sure the hell is- We couch ourselves in cute euphemisms like 'protecting interests' or 'regime change,' but what we're really saying is 'murdering for our own interests'-
Even when we as a nation make terrible choices that uphold the greatest good imaginable, we must admit to ourselves that we have committed horrible acts, and say that maybe there could have been a better way- We must always strive to do the greatest good and if we can, no harm- Otherwise it makes us no better than those we are fighting against-
------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Maybe, maybe not. It depends on your degree of knowledge, but that’s neither here nor there. The author of this thread did not say partial responsibility. The author said the US and Britain assassinated the leader of this country.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
If you supply resources of money or information to remove someone, and you don't specify how, then you are partially responsible.
Quote:Exactly how far would you tie the hands of the US? Should the US never act in the interest of its people?
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
So by your agruement, If some of us felt Bush was acting against our own best interests, and we decided to send Bin Laden some cash to help him act against Bush......... This would be all well and good.
SEVENPERCENT:
I fail to see the insult (or the fallacy) you are referring to, but it was unintentional either way. I don’t know whether you can see the big picture or not, and I have no desire to judge you based on your education level. I’m fairly sure, however, that with your implication that the US purposely installed radical religious groups to combat communism, you might possibly be missing some subtleties somewhere.
But this is what I really find interesting.
Quote:Certainly we agree that supporting Democracy is a great goal, but I’m afraid I would have to emphatically disagree with the remainder, at least how I am understanding it. If you are that one person who dies so that 100 million could live, then I would admit that it would be a major bummer for you and your family. So explain to me how it is not just as big a bummer on the other side, only a 100 million times worse! If your point of view is really one in which you see no difference between an outcome in which one person dies and an outcome in which a 100 million die, I think that there is probably some picture somewhere you’re not seeing.
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
But the facts are, that when you fund murderous rebels, even for a good cause -and supporting Democracy is the greatest cause there is- you are still condoning murder- Is one murder worse than 100 million? Not unless you're that murder victim's family or supporters, then by God it sure the hell is- We couch ourselves in cute euphemisms like 'protecting interests' or 'regime change,' but what we're really saying is 'murdering for our own interests'-
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Certainly we agree that supporting Democracy is a great goal, but I’m afraid I would have to emphatically disagree with the remainder, at least how I am understanding it. If you are that one person who dies so that 100 million could live, then I would admit that it would be a major bummer for you and your family. So explain to me how it is not just as big a bummer on the other side, only a 100 million times worse! If your point of view is really one in which you see no difference between an outcome in which one person dies and an outcome in which a 100 million die, I think that there is probably some picture somewhere you’re not seeing.
You misunderstand me- If one has to die so a million can live, that's a noble, lofty thing- But how that person dies is the point you are missing- If one man is murdered so a million can live, then we must also still say that while a noble sacrifice or just cause, that the man was murdered- I do see the difference between the outcome of millions dying vs. one man dying, but it still has to be called like it is- Does one evil act you commit compared to the hundreds of evil acts another commits make you equals? Of course not- But does that make your act any less evil? No, it does not-
We as a nation have got to realize that sometimes we make mistakes, or bad judgements- We unwittingly helped create the Taliban (by supplying the Mujahadeen freedom fighters), as well as Saddam Hussein (by funding his arms program to defeat Iran) and the various Ayatollahs in Iran (which we learned about in the 80's)- All for a good cause, keeping the world free from Communism, etc., but all done nonetheless- Now we're paying for many of those choices with blood-This thread started the discussion that when you support a choice of actions, for good or ill, that leave men dead, you are responsible for the blood spilled- Same with murder for hire, same with 'regime change'-
You also asked me this, is one man worth a million? I ask you- How much do you think you are worth to your mother? To your wife, or children if you have them?- Do you think they could see the big picture if it happened to you? I'm not sure that
Quote:cuts it- In that respect, I think that is part of the problem with our foreign policy as of late- We are becoming so intent on the big picture, we are failing to see the human side of it- We forget sometimes that 'stabilizing a region' means people (children, often) have to die, and then cannot understand why we become disliked- We forget that while we are only trying to help, there are people who mistake that for aggression, which only makes it harder- Sometimes you have to knuckle down, admit you might be wrong (or guilty, or whatever), ask for help, and beg for a chance to do better- That's what is noble, and that is nearly impossible-
major bummer for you and your family
But doing the impossible makes us mighty-
And I apologize for taking your statement of the facts as an insult, perhaps I misread your tone- My pet peeve in face-to-face conversation is condescesion, as if someone has to 'explain' things to me- I get it, and I'm studied, or I wouldnt be talking-
------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Do you think it matters? Do you really think the tragedy my family would feel with my loss is any different then the tragedy any other family would feel at their loss? And if you multiply that by a million, how can it possibly matter? One does not equal a million.
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
You also asked me this, is one man worth a million? I ask you- How much do you think you are worth to your mother? To your wife, or children if you have them?- Do you think they could see the big picture if it happened to you?
What was it Stalin said, “The death of one man is a tragedy; the death of a million is statistic.”
“As long as I’m not effected, let millions die.” This is the kind of small thinking that makes it difficult for people to understand why we are doing what we are doing in Iraq or why we supported the coups and assassinations that we did. This is sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the realities of the world. This is why I’ve said over and over that the US does not exist in a vacuum. We do not do what we do, because we enjoy inflicting pain; we do it because the likely or potential outcome of not doing it may be far, far worse.
The perfect example of course is, “what if we had gone into Nazi Germany sooner?” How many millions would have been saved? And of course the 9/ll commission determined that the problem with American international policy, where it applied to terrorism, was a lack of action.
I could have told them that.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
What was it Stalin said, “The death of one man is a tragedy; the death of a million is statistic.”
“As long as I’m not effected, let millions die.” This is the kind of small thinking that makes it difficult for people to understand why we are doing what we are doing in Iraq or why we supported the coups and assassinations that we did. This is sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the realities of the world.
Finn, we have killed thousands and millions of people in every conflict we've engaged in since Viet Nam, but because until this one we've only lost like five of our own soldiers and half of them was 'cause they tripped and fell trying to get into a helecopter or something, those millions have only been a statistic. Seems to me that as long as the millions who die are dark skinned foreigners America is more than happy to burry its collective head in the sand and ignore the realities of the world. "As long as [American lives are] not affected, let millions die."
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Double post.
And I say unto you brethren, that below thou shalt find the true post. Seek and ye shall find, but seek below this post, lest ye not find. Because if ye seek above this post, thou shalt not find, and if ye seek in this post, ye shall not find. Only if ye seek below this post wilt thou find. And find ye shall if ye seek not here.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:First of all, I’m not talking about combat deaths. I’m talking about people killed by their government. Dude, you’re not even on the right page, but it’s kind of a dumb thing to say that we’ve only lost 5 soldiers in wars since Vietnam. We've lost many more then that. And it’s an even dumber thing to say that we killed those people because they were dark skinned.
Originally posted by HKCavalier:Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
What was it Stalin said, “The death of one man is a tragedy; the death of a million is statistic.”
“As long as I’m not effected, let millions die.” This is the kind of small thinking that makes it difficult for people to understand why we are doing what we are doing in Iraq or why we supported the coups and assassinations that we did. This is sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the realities of the world.
Finn, we have killed thousands and millions of people in every conflict we've engaged in since Viet Nam, but because until this one we've only lost like five of our own soldiers and half of them was 'cause they tripped and fell trying to get into a helecopter or something, those millions have only been a statistic. Seems to me that as long as the millions who die are dark skinned foreigners America is more than happy to burry its collective head in the sand and ignore the realities of the world. "As long as [American lives are] not affected, let millions die."
It’s completely inconsistent, for one thing. If you’re intent is to scream racism, how do you explain Yugoslavia? All the people we killed there were white. There were, in fact, real reasons for those wars or conflicts. But I guess if anti-American rhetoric is your goal, you’re not really concerned with the real reasons.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn, hey, the whole last couple of weeks in world events has got me pretty wildly upset. Sometimes the bitter ironies of our world are overwhelming. One sad consequence of that is my last post on this thread inwhich my substantive "rhetoric" was overwhelmed by bitterness and irony. Irony is a dangerously unstable thing online, I know (I know, I know). So I'm not surprised if my point got a little garbled.
So what was I on about? First of all, seriously, I really didn't intend my rhetoric to be "anti-american." America is still the best place to be as far as I'm concerned. We do have one of the freest presses on the planet even if they act like america's little cheerleading squad these days. People come here and their dreams come true a lot of the time in ways they never could have realized in other parts of the world. And, of course, we make the best TV shows 
.
Rather, my rhetoric would more properly be termed "anti-war." I have nothing good to say about it. War is bad (horrifically, cataclysmically, psychopathologically bad), even when Americans participate in it. I'm one of these unless-they're-on-your-doorstep-threatening-your-kids-don't-do-it type o' guys (sorry, irony again. What I mean is that war is only justified when the threat is absolutely, manifestly immediate and direct. "Pre-emptive" war is just evil and wrong and going to war in Iraq--the way we went to war in Iraq--is one of the five wrongest things this country has ever done). And anyway, since we are the pre-eminant military force on the planet, in my view, we have been very, very bad in our time. Even the best country on Earth has room to grow.
The "only lost 5 guys" remark was a bitter summation of what I believe to be how the great mass of americans have seen our casualties in recent wars. The mainstream media have consistantly downplayed the numbers of combat deaths and yet any time one of our soldiers has been killed in a non-combat related accident it's on the front page. The not so subtle measage being, "American's only die by accident." When in reality as I see it, war is a place, primarily, where people are sent to die.
And please blame the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King for the racism remarks . We send an awful lot of poor and minority americans to foreign lands so they can kill and be killed by, mainly, people of color. And communists.
Finn, thanks for replying. The internet is littered with threads which end with one of my posts.
Hey, anyway, you ever seen this show--it was only on for like half a season--anyway, it's really cool and it just came out on dvd...
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME