The problem in Iraq : Iraqis lack a sense of humor !

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
M: You can't expect anything so large-scale to operate flawlessly--morally speaking, managerially speaking, or otherwise

ACPlayer: Why cant I expect it? It operated pretty flawlessly as a killing machine -- of course there was no morality there either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you're just resorting to emotonalism and employing rhetoric. It didn't operate flawlessly as a killing machine--there were quite a few snafus--though it's cute how you inserted the word "pretty" just to enable your rhetoric.

[ QUOTE ]
ACPLayer:If you are married and tell your wife "I did not have sexual relations with that woman -- it was just an abherrent few inches that found its way into her mouth". Wonder what she would say to that!

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on---you can draw a better analogy than that, can't you? ;-)

[Cyrus]

For someone who comes on all aggressive and arrogant in his posts, you're making points that are way too mushy and airy. But it's your time.

"So you can't answer the question. I didn’t figure you could since there is no moral difference really [between killing and torturing]."

I see you either play the fool or you are the real thing. I will not be baited into elementary issues but will only give you as broad a hint as possible : Check out the Geneva Protocols' text. You might ask yourself why the world considers morally unacceptable to torture a war prisoner but morally acceptable to kill the enemy in war.

Happy reading. (Or is that too much to ask?)

"In fact, I pretty much think all methods of warfare are morally equivalent - including flying planes into buildings."

Ah a moral relativist! We should have you stuffed. (No, better yet, why don't you give a call to Osama bin Laden? That's what he was saying all along. Osama and his people claim that blowing up buses and slamming airplanes on buildings is not different from "regular" warfare. Way to go, Utah!)

"The article you post has zero to do with Iraq and the murders took place Macedonia you doofus."

The article I posted was indicative of the war's idiocy and its criminal nature, from beginning to end. That was why I put it up for all to see, as I wrote. Only a war executed with such a twisted logic as the war in Iraq was could cause the intentional killing of innocents away from Iraq, only in order for the killers to score points with the United States!

And the killing is also revealing of the true motives of the countries participating in the "coalition". Why else would ...Macedonia join in the war against Saddam? Only a doofus would believe that countries such as Albania, El Salvador or Macedonia are keen to ...give democracy to the Iraqis.

[ACPlayer]

What's wrong with rhetoric? A great way to make a point usually. You may want to learn some debating techniques to help you make your points. There was zero emotionalism in my point, unlike the emotionalism that you frequently demonstrate on the subject of Islam.

The analogy is not all bad, as clearly Bush's Military's running of this war is analogous to Clinton's running of his penis. The furor over the penis was far greater than the furor over the treatment of the prisoners (I know you opposed the furor and thought it was much ado about nothing -- but you also know that the penis did not kill innocent people).

But there is definitely room for improvement in the analogy. Isn't there always?

[Utah]

I am neither arrogant nor agressive. I just dislike it immensely when people that have some intellectual capacity, like yourself, use such obviously flawed logic.


I will not be baited into elementary issues

Ah, like I said, you cannot answer the question. I challenge you to do it. How can you be baited into anything if you are merely stating what is so obvious? Please, I am the fool you believe me to be. Explain it to me.

BTW - rules of warefare do not by any means dictate what is morally correct. They only try to set the playing field - and they do a miserable job at doing so. Do you think our enemies (i.e., your friends) follow the Geneva protocals?

Since we are on the subject - let me throw a hypothetical scenario at you. WW2 and the decision to drop the atomic bomb. What if we were able to achieve the same result by torturing 1 person? Would the bomb be acceptable and the torture be morally wrong? What about 100 people? 1,000, 10,000? You get twisted up mighty quick when you start to try and 'rate' things morally.

Ah a moral relativist! We should have you stuffed. (No, better yet, why don't you give a call to Osama bin Laden? That's what he was saying all along. Osama and his people claim that blowing up buses and slamming airplanes on buildings is not different from "regular" warfare. Way to go, Utah!)

We both might also both think pizza is a great food. That doesnt mean we share any sort of common goals. As I said, trying to assign morality to warefare tactics is a worthless exercise. Again, there is a big difference between tactics and actual actions - but I suspect you know that. For example, shooting someone in the head is a tactic and it is morally neutral. If can be used for acceptable means (self defense) or horrific means (sadistic murder).

In the end, as Ayn Rand and others have hypothesized, this morality stuff is all B.S. anyway. Tell me, where does morality come from?

The article I posted was indicative of the war's idiocy and its criminal nature

This artical had absolutely zero to do with Iraq. Zero. Go read it again. And again, you need to stop taking specific actions and extrapolating them out to a larger meaning. However, if you want to do that, we can have a lot of fun with the actions of the fringe left (or right).

[imported_Chuck Weinstock]

Also, somebody doesn't have a fashion sense. According to the "fashion" expert on Queer Eye for the Straight Guy (as interviewed on either Wait Wait Don't Tell Me or Waddya Know? I can't remember) they would have been much better off with a navy blue instead of the royal blue they are using.

Chuck

[adios]

So what should the US do about it? Pull out of Iraq ASAP? Use the time warp machine and have those responsible undue the deeds? Investigate the incidents and punish the guilty appropriately? What?

[Boris]

small potatoes. War is ugly. This is a normal part of the process. It is also why the Pentagon and the Bush Administration want very careful control over information that is reported to the media. Many people support an idea in principal and then chicken out or change their mind when confronted with reality. Well we (meaning the collective citizens of the US) signed up for this war so we should accept that this kind of crap will occur.

[CORed]

Our biggest problem in Iraq is that the leadership (up to and including the Commander in Chief) is incompetent. If you really want to get information from people and are not troubled by ethical considerations, drugs are much more effective than torture. (Not that I'm advocating either)

[Cyrus]

"This morality stuff is all B.S. anyway. Tell me, where does morality come from?"

There go two and a half thousand years of human endeavors to define morality! All for B.S. apparently.

"As Ayn Rand and others have hypothesized..."

Ah, Ayn Rand, Dan Quayle's favorite philosopher! At last, we are dealing with the heavyweights, with the colossuses of western thought. Socrates was a fag.

"You cannot answer the question [about torture and killing]. I challenge you to do it. Please, I am the fool you believe me to be. Explain it to me."

If you put it this way, alright. Here are today's highlights of war ethics :

- Torturing the enemy is not acceptable under the Geneva Protocols. Killing the enemy is.

- Even when the other side does it, you don't need to violate the ethics of war in order to win the war.

- If the other side violates the ethics of war, that doesn't mean that our side is given a free pass to do it too.

- It is to the detriment if the United States to violate the ethics of war. (This is a little complicated and needs elaboration but I said this will be brief : The U.S. aspires to global hegemony but along with military and political it must also offer moral leadership to the world, a facet of American foreign policy that is glaringly weak.)

"This artical had absolutely zero to do with Iraq. Zero. Go read it again."

(patiently) The artical has everything to do with the war in Iraq. To wit :

The U.S. is supposedly engaged in the War Against Terror. The U.S. twists tha arm of every nation in the world ("if you're not with us, etc") to join in that War. The U.S. invades Iraq as part of that wWar, joined by token soldiery from "coalition country-members". The participation of those countris, I submit, is a joke! They are only there to curry American favors - which only shows the moral and political bankruptsy of the war in Iraq. A moral bankrupsy that is evident, among other things, when a country-member intentionally kills off a bunch of illegal Pakistani immigrants and says they were terrorists in order to win brownie points from the U.S.

Go read it again.

[Cyrus]

Here's a serious and in-depth analysis along with a proposal.

Although I disagree with some of the author's remarks about the situation in Iraq, I found his arguments to be well made.

How To Get Out Of Iraq