Ultraviolet on 15/6/2006 at 01:58
TGGP: Modern anarchist writing sounds like linguistic masturbation. "Simplicity? We don't need no steenkin' simplicity!" They, of course, would accuse me of having a short attention span, but hey, if successful anarchy is about cooperation, they'll need to lower their requirements for getting into the club, and by that I mean stop circlejerking over their oh-so-artistic writing.
Azal on 15/6/2006 at 11:33
Quote Posted by Hier
Dividing along religious boundaries makes way, way too much sense to be accepted by a culture as religiously fanatic as that one.
The question isn't over religion or tribes for troubles in any ideas revolving around <strike>divvying</strike> dividing up Iraq, it's "Who gets the bit with the most oil?"
Rogue Keeper on 15/6/2006 at 11:55
It's about everything you mentioned.
belboz on 17/6/2006 at 06:47
Since Saddam was removed more Iraqi's have died, than the amount of Iraqi's that died under Saddam.
Convict on 17/6/2006 at 10:04
While I am rather critical of George Bush, I think that a distinction needs to be made between Saddam's deliberate mass murder and the Americans' (EDIT: and other countries too I guess) accidental killings (even though more people).
RyushiBlade on 17/6/2006 at 10:13
Ah, but the important thing is that now people are dying for a cause.
Before, they were just dying.
SD on 17/6/2006 at 12:22
Quote Posted by Convict
While I am rather critical of George Bush, I think that a distinction needs to be made between Saddam's deliberate mass murder and the Americans' accidental killings.
Why?
What's the difference between deliberately killing civilians and deliberately dropping bombs to kill enemy combatants in the certain knowledge that civilians will die?
Malygris on 17/6/2006 at 12:26
"Personally, I think, uh... they don't really want to be involved in this war. You know, I mean, they sort of took away our freedom and gave it to the, to the gookers, you know. But they don't want it. They'd rather be alive than free, I guess. Poor dumb bastards."
paloalto on 17/6/2006 at 18:28
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
Why?
What's the difference between deliberately killing civilians and deliberately dropping bombs to kill enemy combatants in the certain knowledge that civilians will die?
1.Deliberately dropping bombs is not the same as deliberately killing civilians.
Unless intent has no signifigance at all.
2.Saddam would still be deliberately killing civilians if he were still in power.
Iraqis would still be dying.The insurgency has killed more Iraqis deliberately
targeting a lot of civilians as well as police.
3.This would mean no military action would be justified because civilians might be killed.Does that include the defense of your own country were it ever to occur.
This idea that you have a body count on one side and a body count on the other and when they equal each other ,irregardless of your motives or intent makes your actions unjustified is ludicrous.You may not agree with the war but basing it on a set of two body counts is ridiculous.
SD on 17/6/2006 at 18:43
Quote Posted by paloalto
1.Deliberately dropping bombs is not the same as deliberately killing civilians.
Unless intent has no signifigance at all.
Intent is irrelevant when you
know that civilians will be killed as a result of your actions.
You can't just drop bombs into civilian areas to kill enemies and then claim that the civilian deaths were an "accident".
