I don't feel that this forum really does not know about Saddam, so I am going to speak on this man, and try to show to this forum how evil is kept inside this man, and even if he has no weapons of mass destruction, the thought of how EVIL he is should be enough for anyone to get him the hell out of power. What? Don't all of you anti-Iraqi's think he isn't a threat, or your oil is too important? I'll prove to you all that him and his sons need removed.
1. Saddam has killed his own people with gas- thousands of them. It is time to free these people from such evil things.
2. For entertainment before he goes to bed, Saddam watches executions and people being gassed to death. WHAT KIND OF MONSTER DOES THAT?
3. The Kurds, the group of people Saddam that live in the north- have been gassed and killed by the truckload. An oppressed people needs to be helped, it should be reason alone, but it does not appear to be. Shall I continue?
4. No doubt, Saddam has instructed his republican guard, all 120,000 of em, to camp in people's houses around baghdad. What kind of person tells his soldiers to camp in his OWN PEOPLE'S houses?
5. He is so afraid for his life, that he holds meetings underneath civilian houses so that he won't be targeted.
6. His sons are just as evil. His one son watches women being raped as entertainment.
7. He is in control of Europe's oil supply. I think this asset needs to be stripped from him, and I think that it has already happened. The US doesn't need Iraq's oil.
Personally, I think all those reasons are enough. My soldiers are fighting for their lives to help me. Don't support them, and you have just asked for them to be given a death wish. I don't wish for any more soldiers to be issued such a solemn judgement, so it has happened, and I have supported it, and now have given all the reasons I know of. I think those are enough to remove him. If it was twelve years ago, no one would think what we were doing was bad, would they?
"Evil men will triumph when good men do nothing."-Edmund Burke
.......I thought you would know better than to start yet another thread about this theme after all the complaints.
Do you even know what the USA has done in the past?
much worse things than saddam
Thay started this all
and even helpt saddam in the past!
for there own purpos
and where did you get the info that his sone is watching video's of raped women??? from the usa? :p
Evil does not excist, it's just a false religious thought. No person is evil, because it's not in human nature. Even Saddam and Bin Laden does what they belive is best for the world, so they're not evil. Now, I'm not going to comment anything else, except:
7. He is in control of Europe's oil supply. I think this asset needs to be stripped from him, and I think that it has already happened. The US doesn't need Iraq's oil.
Perhaps you could scource that BS? Thought not. For your information, USA imports more oil from Iraq than the whole Europe does.
Scource:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html)
And in case you didn't know, Europe has a much larger population.
Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn
Evil does not excist, it's just a false religious thought. No person is evil, because it's not in human nature. Even Saddam and Bin Laden does what they belive is best for the world, so they're not evil.
So then you don't believe in good? Because you can't have one without the other... if they were doing what's best for the world then they could at least feed their own countrymen and not let them starve to death. Don't give me that crap JM.
Originally posted by pbguy1211
So then you don't believe in good? Because you can't have one without the other...
Precisely.
But just think of it for a moment. The US belives they are good and Saddam is evil. However, Saddam belives he is good and the US are evil. You see? This is enough evidence that he's not evil, because you can't be evil unless you know you are evil.
so it's good to kill your own countrymen for fun and enjoyment? I bet you were a big fan of Hitler's too...
Alright, Qui-Gon, if good and evil do not exist, then why have laws?
If you truly believe what you say then you can't think its wrong to murder or steal or rape, because it's just what the perpetrator thinks is best.
I don't think Saddam really thinks he's doing what's right. He's doing what makes his life more fun to live, more pleasurable.
Now, a person like Bin Ladin - he is doing what he believes is right.
I remember, Saddam once said something around the lines of "I may be looked upon as an evil dictator now, but 200 years from now, I will be regarded as one of the great men in history"
:rolleyes:
The USA did a lot of stupid thing, but don't forget that Europe would not have won the WWII without their help...
They should not have started this war, they'll get a lot of trouble (terrorists, possibly)...:(
Originally posted by pbguy1211
so it's good to kill your own countrymen for fun and enjoyment? I bet you were a big fan of Hitler's too...
For one thing, I'm starting to wonder where you hear all that crap about Saddam being a sadistic monster. Second, I'm not saying killing your countrymen is good, (though he have his reasons for doing it), but as long as he belives it's good, he's not evil. I'm suprised how long it takes before you get my point. And about that comment about Hitler: :rolleyes:
Alright, Qui-Gon, if good and evil do not exist, then why have laws?
Because a community could not work without them. Laws are made to ensure the safety of a nation.
Anyway, if evil does excist, then tell me: What is evil? Alright, let's say you say killing is evil. But what if you kill a guy who's running towards you with an axe he's planning to put through your head? Will it then be evil to kill him? And you might say killing in self defense isn't evil. But what if you kill a guy who's planning to kill you? In one way, that's self defense, in another way, it isn't. And what if Saddam buy some nukes and nuke the entire USA? Would that be evil? But it's certainly self defense.
And what about killing others because they want to be killed? Is that evil?
My point is that if you just think about it, there is no good and evil, there is no right and wrong. There are only opinions and different views of things.
My point is that if you just think about it, there is no good and evil, there is no right and wrong. There are only opinions and different views of things.
I agree. There is no good, there is no evil. When you judge a person, unless you judge it from their point of view, you will never know why, you will always be a "judgemental person."
So how about we not use the word "evil" and begin to call him a "person doing things for his pleasure by inflicting pain and mysery upon others"?
I don't think he thinks he's doing what's right.
Need such a man exist?
Seeing you're an aethiest I'm not going to argue good and evil with you, it's a pointless debate and we have 2 different opinions. however...
Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn
Even Saddam and Bin Laden does what they belive is best for the world, so they're not evil.
I didn't know you're a mind reader... so the next time you think you know the minds of a dictator of a small country, or a billionaire leader of the biggest terrorist organization on the planet who hides in caves, do me a favor and slap yourself hard enough to bring yourself back to reality. Because you have no idea what's going on inside their heads so don't pretend like you do.
I must agree with some facts that people have brought up: Some of what is said about Saddam in the first post is not true, but should you take out even the most evil (or something that would seem bad) things he's done, isn't that still bad? We have proof that he does kill people in Iraq with bio weapons with almost no reason.
This discussion is all well and good, but let's keep the conversations civilized, shall we. Oh yes, and while the points about good and evil are quite valid, let's please stay on topic and not digress, all righty? Else this thread's goin' the way of the dodo.
Thank you, Rogue Nine.
Now to counter on a few points:
NL Ackbar: As for Saddam's sons, don't you know if the father believes something is right, even though it is pretty disgusting, it mgiht transfer to the son's? Learn some psychology, my friend. If his father does stuff similar in nature, then he has a good chance to do it too.
"much worse things than saddam"
By this, I am assuming you mean the atomic bombs, am I correct? Well, the alternate plan was for a 2nd D-day, and although it was not something that was good, it was better for the world in the long run, just as I believe even though 9/11 was a atrocity, it benefits the US in the long run, as it has increased security.
"Thay started this all
and even helpt saddam in the past!
for there own purpos"
It was another soviet-US skirmish. The soviets supplied kholmani, while the US supplied Saddam, as the LESSER OF 2 EVILS.
JM-QUI-GON-JINN:
"Perhaps you could scource that BS? Thought not. For your information, USA imports more oil from Iraq than the whole Europe does."
Umm, would you like to source that BS? The US gets most of its oil from Venezuela and Argentina, and from its reserves in texas and alaska(although not as much as from venezuela) Arab oil, which I doubt comes from saddam saying he hates the US(thank you Krkode), is like 15% or so.
And as I've said, but no one believes me, is that France and Germany do not want war because they have oil contracts with Saddam (don't hold me 100% on Germany, but France definately does)
But still, I don't recall the US gassing its own people, although I can remember us opressing some, but we didn't outright kill them!
Saddam has done that.
I think what trooper was right, you guys are really sympathetic to Iraq and Saddam, even though I have already proven he's a MONSTER, and as for your good and evil crap, if I just walk up and stab someone 15 times, I guess I just killed them cuz I'm jewish, right, Jinn?
Originally posted by Heavyarms
By this, I am assuming you mean the atomic bombs, am I correct? Well, the alternate plan was for a 2nd D-day, and although it was not something that was good, it was better for the world in the long run, just as I believe even though 9/11 was a atrocity, it benefits the US in the long run, as it has increased security.
But tell me: What the helheim was the point of dropping the bombs in the middle of civillian cities? You could just bomb a military place, but noooo....
Umm, would you like to source that BS? The US gets most of its oil from Venezuela and Argentina, and from its reserves in texas and alaska(although not as much as from venezuela) Arab oil, which I doubt comes from saddam saying he hates the US(thank you Krkode), is like 15% or so.
:rolleyes: I gave you evidence that USA imports a lot of oil from Iraq (close to 450,000 barrels per day), but still, you deny it. You said Iraqian oil is really important for Europe, but doesn't really matter for the US. But I gave you proof that USA imports more oil from Iraq than Europe, and thereby your point gets unvalid.
And as I've said, but no one believes me, is that France and Germany do not want war because they have oil contracts with Saddam (don't hold me 100% on Germany, but France definately does)
But USA have much bigger oil contracts with Saddam.
But still, I don't recall the US gassing its own people, although I can remember us opressing some, but we didn't outright kill them!
Sure you haven't! *cough*Indians*couch*
and as for your good and evil crap, if I just walk up and stab someone 15 times, I guess I just killed them cuz I'm jewish, right, Jinn?
But you wouldn't stab him without a reason, would you? It is only extremely rarely people kills without reason, and in those cases, the killer has a mental disease, wich is a sickness, not evil.
I belive that if you think another person is evil, you completely lacks the ability to see things from that person's view.
1) That depends on
a) Does he consider them his people? That will be like when the Romans killed Christians. Using ur logic, u would be accusing the Romans of killing thier own people, as the Christians were a good minority of the Roman Empire's population.
However, I tell u that the Romans did not consider the Christians thier people, becuase thier people worshipped the Roman gods.
Same with Hitler. He was definetely a bastard who killed innocent people, but he didn't consider them to be his people .
b) If they were rebelling or not.
2) How do u know that?
3) see 1
4) I don't see the problem with that. In just about every war in history soldiers have used civilian buildings as cover.
5) a) Not what I read in the newspaper
b) Prove it
c) If u were him, would u go into the place in Baghdad that will probably be among the first targets for US troops?
d) Finally, if it is true, and my previos point be ignored, it will show that he is a coward, not that he is a monster.
6) Prove it
7) So??????? That statement is simply idiotic. JM's point aside, it will be like, say, the ice-cream man comes and stops in a poor neighborhood with no shops. The children rush out to buy icecream. But suddenly the police come and arrest the icecream man. The reason? The icecream man was the only source of icecream into the nieghborhood, and there is a possibility that the icecream man will try to take advantage of this.
8) There is no need for this thread.
1a and b: there were no rational reasons whatsoever, besides to test his new weapon. Ever heard of Chemical Ali?
2. You didn't know that? That's a proven fact, I don't have a damned source, but I know it is true.
3. They just kinda want their independence, I mean, no real reason to fly planes over and drop gasses and kill them.
4. I bet that isn't true. Vietnam, WW1, Civil War. And if it was even done, not to the extent Sadam is.
5. That information is reportedly obtained from a traitor inside of Sadam's regime, i.e. wednesday's cruise missile attack. Also, the meeting in which he was broadcasted was from a bunker under a civilian house.
6. Ever heard of psychology? If a child is abused or not treated properly, bad things occur. It has happened to his sons.
7. Too bad the US has acted to put bans on Iraqi oil(not sure if those went into effect, but there were definite bills attempted to stop it)
I reiterate my point about you guys liking Sadam or something,
he is a sinister man, what the hell's the matter with you guys?
And as to Jinn's statement on atomic bombs: Well, after the first one, they didn't surrender. What makes you think a military base would have been better?
Plus, I don't recall us pulling out weapons and just start shooting indians, but maybe someone from another country knows more about my country than me. Could happen.
Lessee....
Since WW2, France has used their veto power a total of 6 times. USA, on the other hand, has obstructed UN interventions a total of 70 times. 38 of those in connection to Israel, which they as the sole and only member of the UN opposed the idea of acting against Isreal's breaking of UN resolutions.
It sounds familiar, doesn't it? It sounds just the same as this war, except the tables are turned this time.
Israel has had over 30 years to remove themselves from their occupied territory. They've commited crimes against their own people. They've tank shocked Palestinian cities. They've broken more UN resolutions than Saddam has.
"I don't know something called International Principles. I vow that I'll burn every Palestinian child (that) will be born in this area. The Palestinian woman and child is more dangerous than the man, because the Palestinian childs existence infers that generations will go on, but the man causes limited danger. I vow that if I was just an Israeli civilian and I met a Palestinian I would burn him and I would make him suffer before killing him. With one hit I've killed 750 Palestinians (in Rafah in 1956). I wanted to encourage my soldiers by raping Arabic girls as the Palestinian women is a slave for Jews, and we do whatever we want to her and nobody tells us what we shall do but we tell others what they shall do."
-Ariel Sharon, in an interview with General Ouze Merham, 1956
Their prime minister is a racist pig as worthy of execution as Saddam is.
Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn
But tell me: What the helheim was the point of dropping the bombs in the middle of civillian cities? You could just bomb a military place, but noooo....
Hiroshima WAS a military place (not sure if there were troop centers or production facilities or what not, but it did have military elements), it was just in the middle of city. Now, why would you put a large military compound in the middle of a city? Because you think the enemy would never bomb it.
Sure you haven't! *cough*Indians*couch*
Andrew Jackson has absolutely nothing to due with Bush or America today. Thats the great thing about Democracy, the failures of one President don't have to carry over to the next. It's a different country today than it used to be, the same can't be said for Iraq in the past 20 years.
I belive that if you think another person is evil, you completely lacks the ability to see things from that person's view.
You know, i'm really trying to see things from a rapist's point of view, but no matter how i look at it, it is evil. I'd really like to hear you talk you're way out of why raping isn't wrong or evil.
Oh,a nd i'd hope you realize that there is a difference between killing and murder. Killing isn't always evil, but murder is. War, for instance, or self-defense, isn't neccessarily evil, but killing someone in cold blood is. How can you possibly say it is not?
Originally posted by Heavyarms
And as to Jinn's statement on atomic bombs: Well, after the first one, they didn't surrender. What makes you think a military base would have been better?
Civilians are civilians are civilians.
Plus, I don't recall us pulling out weapons and just start shooting indians
Selective memory perhaps? Could happen.
Maybe you should try remembering how exactly you got all the land you did. The Indians sure as hell didn't just give it up.
Originally posted by Tie Guy
You know, i'm really trying to see things from a rapist's point of view, but no matter how i look at it, it is evil. I'd really like to hear you talk you're way out of why raping isn't wrong or evil.
No, I'd like to hear you explain to me why raping is evil. Because it hurts other people, right? And why is that evil?
No matter how you twist and bend it, the only way you can explain this is by postulating that there's a higher code of morals of sorts. A higher judge, if you will. The concept of evil was invented to justify the violence and punishment.
Most animals have had no need to invent such concepts (except those living in tribes, such as monkies) - are they evil too? Do you have any idea how much brutality goes on in the animal kingdom? It's survival out there, and your cultural constructs bears no meaning in such an environment.
Tie Guy- Why nuke the whole city? Why not bomb just the bases?
In other words: U are somewere in town. A man in the town has a detonator with which he going to blow up ur whole family, but for some strange reason or another he is only able to do it in about 5 minutes time, so u still have some time.
He is standing in the middle of a crowd of his friends. Now his friends are pacifist. In order to get to him u don't shoot through them, do u? U find another way.
1) Okey-dokey. I'll type out all my stuff, complete this time, so u can see for urselves of what the USA has done to it's civilians in the name of science or defense. Expect it in a few days.
2) :rolleyes:
3) Maybe not quite as harshly, but I'm sure Bush won't just twiddle his thumbs if Calfornia suddenly became independent.
4) What the...? My friend, that is how street-fighting is war is done.
5) Fair enough, let's say that u disproved points A&B. But there are still C&D.
6) It could happen, but u have not proven that it has happened in this specific case.
7) Still haven't answered to me. That was just arandom comment about Americans and Iraqi oil.
Originally posted by Crazy_dog no.3
Tie Guy- Why nuke the whole city? Why not bomb just the bases?
In other words: U are somewere in town. A man in the town has a detonator with which he going to blow up ur whole family, but for some strange reason or another he is only able to do it in about 5 minutes time, so u still have some time.
He is standing in the middle of a crowd of his friends. Now his friends are pacifist. In order to get to him u don't shoot through them, do u? U find another way.
I'm not saying it was neccessarily the right thing to do, but people shouldn't just go around saying we bombed a city just to kill civilians, because we didn't.
Avoiding the question, C'jais? It wouldn't be because you can't answer it, would it?
Raping is clearly wrong because it violates another person, and does something harmful to them against their will, as well as causing extreme emotional greif and physcological damage. Now I'll accept your answer, if you have one.
Animals, i would say, are not capable of determining right for wrong on an individual basis. They can tell what they like and don't like, but not what is good and what is bad. I really can't think of one thing that would display a moral code of any sort in animals of any kind, tribe or not. Attacking those who attack cubs or "children" or what not is not a moral decision, BTW, but a genetic survival instinct. Indeed not even all animals defend their children.
Humans, on the other hand, are capable of distinquishing what is right and wrong, and that is why laws were formulated based on that subconscious knowledge. Every human race, civilized or not, that i have ever heard of or studied through history has had some sort of law, and that was well before the times of the bible or judeo concepts. Now, some laws were different among different people, but the core laws remained the same. Where do you think everyone got essentially the same laws? They certainly didn't all call each other up and decide. Therefore there must be some sort of internal code that exists within all humans that causes the concept of good and evil. To deny it, is to deny humanity.
And you know, i am postulating a higher code, but not one that defines good and evil, one that IS good and evil. The concept is a higher code inate within all humans from the dawn of time. You're right, I can't do it without postulating a higher code, because that's the only way that makes sense. Be careful with your words, though, because it is a not a judge, just a list of sorts. Everyone knows what is right and wrong, some people simply choose not to act on it all the time, and that is their choice, with only themselves (or a government created by the same code)to judge them.
Speaking of which, this concept is also what causes guilt. Now, you're obviously not Christian or anything close to it (probably not even agnostic), so i'll use you and aetheists in general as an example. Now, i'm sure at some point in your life, probably in your childhood, you cheated on a test or stole something or did something that would be considered wrong, no? How did it make you feel? Unless you're lying, it made you feel bad about yourself, that is, guilty. If you didn't feel guilty then something is wrong with you (not being able to determine right and wrong is one thing that makes you legally insane). Now i doubt that you grew up in a family that taught Christian values, so what made you (or others) feel guilty? Well, the only explanation is the subconscious adherence to a moral code, however strict. With your views, you probably wouldn't feel guilty about anything now, and that is because you've probably done so many things that go against the code that you've learned (by neccessity) to ignore it altogether. However, if you still do feel guilty, then i thank you for proving my point.
What other explanation is there for guilt? You may say that for Christians and other "religious people" it comes from their own moral teachings since childhood. But what about people that have been aetheists since childhood? I know they feel guilt, because i've seen interviews with convicts. If you truly believe what you now say, you should never feel guilt, but i'd bet everything i own that you and others like you have at least once.
Originally posted by C'jais
[BMaybe you should try remembering how exactly you got all the land you did. The Indians sure as hell didn't just give it up. [/B]
Yes Americans did force indians off their land, but let's not forget history. The Europeans did the same thing when the colonized the Americas. Specifically England, France, and Spain (being the major countries back then).
Also this has nothing to do with comparing the US to Saddam. Reason why: THe people who condoned those actions long since lost power and are dead. Saddam on the other hand is still in power.
You can bring up all the history you want however that means little, the farther you go back the less it matters. Why because those who did such things are no longer in power. Take using an atomic bomb on Japan, that was Truman and he no longer leads this country.
Tie Guy is right, the past is in the past: this is about now, and about how.
Saddam is a threat, whether or not you like it. He needs to be eliminated.
As for good and evil: they believe killing for a cause is good.
Killing is evil.
Therefore, the logical deduction is they are evil if killing is evil & they are killing. if a=b and b=c, then a=c, right? Some logic, right?
as for c'jais: We didn't shoot them over there, and use our guns as cattle prods. We told them to move, which most of them did, except for the Cherokee, in the Trail of Tears. In fact, the French and Spanish armed the Indians on the frontier. Little Big-Horn, anyone? They fought back.
I must say that Admiral and Tie Guy have said some very interesting things. I'll be surprised if C'jais can counter those. I certainly couldn't, even if I wasn't on Admiral's and Tie Guy's side.
No, I'd like to hear you explain to me why raping is evil. Because it hurts other people, right? And why is that evil?
Also this has nothing to do with comparing the US to Saddam. Reason why: THe people who condoned those actions long since lost power and are dead. Saddam on the other hand is still in power.
You can bring up all the history you want however that means little, the farther you go back the less it matters. Why because those who did such things are no longer in power. Take using an atomic bomb on Japan, that was Truman and he no longer leads this country.
I'd like to see the reaction of a woman who has been raped if you told that to her. Rape is a violation of personal space without consent, simple as that. It can be verbal, mental, physical, or emotional. It is not confined to intercourse.
*ignores the Saddam/US crap being thrown around*
On topic, people. Please. You wanna debate this, start another thread. Stay your course. And watch it with the name-calling.
Originally posted by C'jais
No, I'd like to hear you explain to me why raping is evil. Because it hurts other people, right? And why is that evil?
No matter how you twist and bend it, the only way you can explain this is by postulating that there's a higher code of morals of sorts. A higher judge, if you will. The concept of evil was invented to justify the violence and punishment.
Most animals have had no need to invent such concepts (except those living in tribes, such as monkies) - are they evil too? Do you have any idea how much brutality goes on in the animal kingdom? It's survival out there, and your cultural constructs bears no meaning in such an environment.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?
Good grief. You are basically saying. "It's not wrong to rape someone. It's a natural instinct." WTF HAVE YOU BEEN SMOKING?
We are not animals. We have a moral code and laws to back them up. It is one of the highest crimes to violate someone against their will. We are not dogs here. Most of us don't go down the street and see a woman that looks good to us and rape them. That is SICKENING.
The vast majority of the world acknowledges rape and other EVIL crimes and have passed several laws that deal out high penalties for the crime. In many countries it has the death penalty attached to it.
Do you WANT total anachy? Because that is what you are throwing your support behind right there. No such thing as evil my arse. You can blab all you want with you radical nonsense of no real evil while you rot in a jail cell.
didn't see your post R9, but don't worry. I don't figure on posting to much in the war threads anyway
Sorry, R9, I have to post...please forgive me...
I see c'jais's point here. There is no big judge (that we know of), and so he seems to be saying, "Who has said rape is wrong? Some person? What gives that person the right to correct me..."
I don't mean literally you, c'jais, but just a rapist. And true, there is no big judge who decides what is wrong, but as a human there are certain rights we exercise, and one is the right to not-be-raped. As Artoo said, one is disrespecting another's space without consent and whether or not some "big judge" says it's right or wrong, it's wrong.
We have evolved that way. Survival of the fittest does not really apply to humans. It's survival of the smartest, survival of the best.
Do some of you smoke crack before you post here?
If you believe there's nothing wrong with raping someone, go out and do it... see if you aren't shunned by all your friends after you're convicted, and thrown in jail... not to mention most likely beaten before you get there in some form.
How dare you say raping someone isn't "evil"... i hope you get tossed in the slammer for something stupid and some guy named bubba violates your ass. then maybe you'll understand how it's "evil"
Just this one little thing, niner, and i'll hopefully be done.
You might say that the same higher code that is good and evil is also the moral code that gives us rights. I do not believe that you can say there is no good and evil but there are human rights. Both are a reference to a higher code that is above all humankind. You mihgt consider the same "judge" who dictates good and evil also allocates our rights. You can't have basic human rights and no good or evil at the same time, because, according to you, there is nothing higher than individuals.
All I have to say is that people have their views and have the right to have them no matter how absurd they are.
I have my view's and that is my justifacation for going to war with Iraq. Also no one person on this board had all the answers. They may debate back and forth countering everything but it still isn't going to answer everything.
I think that man is a maniac for killing some of his people. You can also say that about any person because every one has commited wrong even though it may not exist in their mind. But how long has this man been in power?
You can say that the US is filled with a nut aswell but atleast the person loses office in a few years. Saddam has been in power for a great deal of time and has been doing stuff like this for a while now but then I might be giving out false information that my government wants me to believe:rolleyes:
But why does everyone outside the US think that there media is fed to them so cleanly?
If you think that we are being mislead then think again cause I am sure that you guys are too but you are thinking just like I am saying that my government would never do that.
People keep saying that we are the baddies when really the world is filled with them but we are just the obvisous ones cause we are a succesful country that has money while another may be starving to death while its own government is commiting genocide.
I may not have all the intelect in the world like most of you do but I do know what I am talking about. I believe what we are doing is right just as they are over then in Iraq too. But they are surrendering aren't they? We've managed to lose the most lifes from the military side while they surrender. I don't know about you guys but I have a lot of friends that are over there risking their lifes while there are people here fighting about it and complaining and whining. I doubt many of you have a lot of friends that are in the military and that are currently over so please stop talking about us like we are "bad" cause every country has **cked up but has just managed to forget about and never had it thrown back in their face like we have.
I just know that when this world is on the brink of total war, cause Iraq isn't even a drop of the Iceberg, you guys are going to look back on this and say what we were thinking. The French have obviously forgotten what the US, Canada, and British, and I think Aussies (forgive me if I have forotten any other countrys) did on June 6, 1944 when they took he first step in liberating France and a lot of Europe (including Belgium). We have kicked so much @$$ and saved so much @$$ but when the time comes I hope that we just let the world go down the toilet as we watch while country's like France ask for assitance when they are caught with there pants down.
Hopeully we will be the last of the two country's when this world turns to one big apple core.
:lsduel: :duel:
I saw A Biography on Saddam a couple of years ago long before Bush, or the thread of war. From what I understand he was rejected by the Iraqi army and a social reject until he joined the Bath Party. His party overthrew the goverment and his mentor was the figurehead while Saddam secretly ran the show. When he died, Saddam was the convenient replacement. He did some good things until the power went to his head, and he grew paronoid. He accused at least 60 people of conspiracy, and of those 60 people(some were members of the Bath Party) he Executed 22. There is no crime he is incapable of. His biggest downfall, is that he is a sad paronoid man who rules with an Iron Fist.
they may have now found a chemical weapons plant. This changes everything. I hope it is one, just so I can make a thread that says "I told you so!" but anyways, what if he has this? I think this changes the whole game because now France, China, Russia, Germany, will support this war, as well as these anti-war people.
Well, some of you people supporting Iraq got your wish. Yesterday there was an article in the newspaper about those DARN Russians sending military supplies to Iraq. Filthy, dirty, rotten Russians.
Originally posted by Heavyarms
Saddam is a threat, whether or not you like it. He needs to be eliminated.
But there is no doubt Bush is a much larger threat. He has already ruined the Europe-US relationship and messed up the entire middle east. Saddam, on the other hand, has done nothing threatening the last few years. I ask as the German foreign minister asked: Warum jetzt?
As for good and evil: they believe killing for a cause is good.
Killing is evil.
Firstly, who are you to judge what's evil and what's not? I hate the fact that certain people think they can play God.
Secondly: If there was a terrorist who was just about to blow up a building wich would have caused thousands of deaths, would you shoot him to stop it? If you would, you are after your own opinion evil.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?
Good grief. You are basically saying. "It's not wrong to rape someone. It's a natural instinct." WTF HAVE YOU BEEN SMOKING?
I would've expect better behaviour from a moderator.
We are not animals. We have a moral code and laws to back them up. It is one of the highest crimes to violate someone against their will. We are not dogs here. Most of us don't go down the street and see a woman that looks good to us and rape them. That is SICKENING.
Excuse me? Humans are animals, no point in denying that. The only difference is that we have higher developed brains.
Do you WANT total anachy? Because that is what you are throwing your support behind right there. No such thing as evil my arse. You can blab all you want with you radical nonsense of no real evil while you rot in a jail cell.
It's a strange thing, pretty mystifying, that people are so convinced that evil excists, yet they cannot explain what it is. There is no universal rule of what's bad and what's not, just accept that. As long as a man is doing what he belives is right, he is not (per definition) evil. Now, Saddam kills to remain in power, and he belives him being in power is a good thing. So no matter how you try to twist it, Saddam isn't evil. No one is.
How dare you say raping someone isn't "evil"... i hope you get tossed in the slammer for something stupid and some guy named bubba violates your ass. then maybe you'll understand how it's "evil"
Imagine this: You and a woman is the only people left on earth. The reproduction of the two of you is the only thing that can save the human race. But by some reason, the woman plainly refuses to have sex with you. Then all of the sudden, it doesn't become all that wrong to rape her, since you can save the entire human race by doing it.
But why does everyone outside the US think that there media is fed to them so cleanly?
All right, imagine this: Three African tribes, two of the disgusts eachother and constantly comes with accutions against the other. Both of the thinks at the other tribe as evil. Yet there is another tribe, wich remains neutral in this tribe conflict, critizising both of the other tribes and trying to find a peaceful solution on the whole mess. Now, wich one of these three tribes do you belive have the cleanest media?
they may have now found a chemical weapons plant. This changes everything. I hope it is one, just so I can make a thread that says "I told you so!" but anyways, what if he has this? I think this changes the whole game because now France, China, Russia, Germany, will support this war, as well as these anti-war people.
Do you really think it changes anything? USA does not have any rights to go to war whether they have WoMDs or not. I have never said that Iraq doesn't have WoMDs, though I have said that it isn't proven they have (wich is still not proven), and that it's all wrong to assume they have. And about the "I told you so!": If you are pretty poor and spends your money on lottery, and then your friends think you shouldn't do that, but then you win. Then there's absolutly no reason to say "I told you so!" because you never knew you were going to win and it was all based on luck, and still a stupid thing to use money on lottery.
Well, some of you people supporting Iraq got your wish. Yesterday there was an article in the newspaper about those DARN Russians sending military supplies to Iraq. Filthy, dirty, rotten Russians.
You complain about anti-Americanism, yet you are more anti-Russian than anyone here are anti-American. This disgusts me.
Originally posted by Tie Guy
Avoiding the question, C'jais? It wouldn't be because you can't answer it, would it?
No. Dodging the answer, are we?
Raping is clearly wrong because it violates another person, and does something harmful to them against their will, as well as causing extreme emotional greif and physcological damage. Now I'll accept your answer, if you have one.
Let me remind you of what we're discussing here. We're talking about good and evil - universal concepts, holding true for all humans. We're not talking about what you feel is wrong, but if you believe (and if you can prove) a universal moral code.
Now, I think rape is brutal and horrifying as well, but I don't assume that what I was taught to think holds true for everyone on earth. Rape is wrong in so many ways when speaking of preserving the human society. Keyword: Society. Morals are cultural constructs dependant on which society you live in.
Example: If you don't get taught at birth that it's wrong to steal, you won't feel a single drop of guilt doing it. Perhaps when you grow older, society takes on the role that your parents never had, and enforces a moral code by exerting punishment if you happen to break a law. But then again, some "evil actions" are not covered by the law (such as causing heartbreak and generally being an ass), and these have to be imprented by some sort of parent for the person to realize that they're "evil" or "morally wrong". Otherwise, that person won't give a damn about it.
Think about it, nearly every person on earth tries to justify their actions, even monsters such as Saddam - to him, "he's aware of the big picture" and "a great pragmatist". To him, the small human sacrifices he makes counterweights the good it brings (in his mind, of course).
Animals, i would say, are not capable of determining right for wrong on an individual basis.
On an individual basis? Take a loyal dog as an example. A dog that's been trained to protect its master through parenting - whether it be by punishing bad behaviour with less food, or through violence doesn't matter - the dog has now been imprented a very firm moral codex that it would bring great pain upon itself before betraying.
Most animals have this social code more or less imprented at birth - ants, dolphins, lions, monkies - a social code that upholds such virtues as sacrificing onself for the greater good of society, though it may differ to a large degree (an ant hive, fx). It's often centered around a hierarchic structure as evidenced in humans as well - a society needs a leader of some kind, or a ruling body. So far, plenty of similarities between humans and other animals. However, humans have gone beyond the crude social constructs shown in animal cultures. Humans, like other "tame animals" are very moldable - by raising a human a specific way, you're able to dictate which virtues should be upheld, and which should never come into play.
Example: A human raised by wild animals. Such a human, while perfectly sane, cares only about survival first and foremost, and the pack society (if raised by dogs, fx) second. Murder means nothing to this human, except if it's murder of a fellow pack mate. Quite clearly, the morals we take for granted as "human" are completely dicarded in this case. Similarily, I can bet you 10$ that I'd be able to raise a child that not only thinks it's morally right to treat women as dirt and rape them as he sees fit, no he also knows he's right. If you want examples of this, you need not look any further back in history than a few hundred years (hint: the dark ages and beyond).
Quite clearly, what you think are universal morals are really nothing more than cultural constructs. The society you live in defines your morals. Think for a minute, what if you hadn't been raised in USA, but as a homeless kid living on the streets of brazil. Would your morals be different? Hell yes. Your morals in this case would probably include a strong camaradarie with your fellow street kids and maybe a firm ideal of sharing the loot with them equally as well. But would you have any objections against stealing? No. Not even the first you did it - everywhere around you, people stole to get by. From child birth you were raised to know that it's okay to steal to get by. It's about survival, not about protecting rich people's possessions.
Every human race, civilized or not, that i have ever heard of or studied through history has had some sort of law, and that was well before the times of the bible or judeo concepts.
Think. Every social animal has laws built in their society, just as much as humans. For ants, the queen must be obeyed. For lions, the largest male gets the biggest share of the meat, and the females hunt for it and takes care of their young. Society would not exist were it not for laws (written or unwritten is irrelevant) - indeed, cultural norms and laws are what defines a society. Again, this has nothing to do with some sort of "universal" moral codex that holds true for all humans. Every human society has laws that are supposed to uphold the society in turn. But there are subtle and not so subtle differences in this. One society is the homeless one described above - another would be the vikings. Vikings did not have any objections against killing the enemy and their own slaves - such was the cultural norms based around a raider culture. They didn't object to outright raping women either - such was the cultural constructs in a male-dominated society.
Now, some laws were different among different people, but the core laws remained the same.
Just which core laws are you talking about?
To deny it, is to deny humanity.
This is you speaking as an American Christian. Christianity preaches healthy morals for the most part, but it's still nothing more than a cultural construct. A biological imperative is not the same as a cultural construct.
And you know, i am postulating a higher code, but not one that defines good and evil, one that IS good and evil.
Again, the homeless did not think he was right - he knew he was right.
Everyone knows what is right and wrong
Yes, my point exactly. But it's different from human to human based on upbringing. Not the same.
Now, you're obviously not Christian or anything close to it (probably not even agnostic)
Pheh.
Here, I can do stereotypes as well: To the Christian, everyone worshipping another god than the Christian one is a heathen by default, as they're really not worshipping God at all. Right? To the Christian, an agnostic is a person believing in false gods, and an atheist is someone not believing in anything at all.
Correction: I'm an agnostic, but you may call me atheist if you will.
Now, i'm sure at some point in your life, probably in your childhood, you cheated on a test or stole something or did something that would be considered wrong, no? How did it make you feel? Unless you're lying, it made you feel bad about yourself, that is, guilty.
Of course it did, but this has only to do with my society, my environment. I was "tamed" to know that it's bad to cheat or steal. It has nothing to do with a universal moral code inherent in all humans. Nothing.
If you didn't feel guilty then something is wrong with you (not being able to determine right and wrong is one thing that makes you legally insane).
Correction: You're right about the mentally insane part, but you make the false assumption to think that every human thinks it morally bad to cheat or steal. Therein lies the crucial difference.
Now i doubt that you grew up in a family that taught Christian values
WHAT!!?
If by "Christian values", you mean not lying, not killing, not stealing, treating other people good etc, then yes. If by "Christian values" you mean I must worship the one and only god, that Jesus is the saviour, that idols are unholy etc, then No.
With your views, you probably wouldn't feel guilty about anything now
What views are you now talking about? That rape is "good"? get a grip. An example is an example is an example. An example is not per default my "views".
Originally posted by Heavyarms
Tie Guy is right, the past is in the past: this is about now, and about how.
Then stop whining about how much Europe "owes" you from past events.
Killing is evil.
Killing is bad for your society, which is why you've been taught to respect it as morally bad behaviour.
Is killing bad in all cases, full stop? Of course not.
Imagine yourself being thrown into the wilderness all by yourself. You need to kill in order to survive. There's no way around it. You may even be forced to cannibalize to get food. Slowly or quickly, it doesn't matter, your social norms will be eroded away until only a desperate core of Survival remains. This is all that matters, like it or not. It's not justifiable in the moral sense, but it's self-evident.
And strange, I haven't seen any of you comment on my post about Israel and their racist prime minister. Well, I'd at least have expected it from you, Heavyarms.
Originally posted by darthfergie
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?
Coming from a super moderator. You sir, lack empathy to an astounding degree.
Good grief. You are basically saying. "It's not wrong to rape someone. It's a natural instinct." WTF HAVE YOU BEEN SMOKING?
Here's a clue: I didn't say rape was good. I said rape wasn't evil. There is no evil in this world. It's all in your head. Rape was an example, and I scorn at rape just as much as the next guy.
We are not animals. We have a moral code and laws to back them up. It is one of the highest crimes to violate someone against their will. We are not dogs here.
Haha. Funny how self righteous people have become as of late. Don't make humanity into something it isn't.
Most of us don't go down the street and see a woman that looks good to us and rape them. That is SICKENING.
Yes, to you and me. Do we dictate moral behaviour? No. Does the government dictate moral behaviour? Does the Bible?
Do you WANT total anachy? Because that is what you are throwing your support behind right there. No such thing as evil my arse. You can blab all you want with you radical nonsense of no real evil while you rot in a jail cell.
I really don't want to say this, but even as a super moderator, you're not qualified to post in this forum. Heck, you should by all rights have been stripped of your posting rights here from the very first flame.
didn't see your post R9, but don't worry. I don't figure on posting to much in the war threads anyway
Split the thread. Don't lock it.
Originally posted by C'jais
If by "Christian values", you mean not lying, not killing, not stealing, treating other people good etc, then yes. If by "Christian values" you mean I must worship the one and only god, that Jesus is the saviour, that idols are unholy etc, then No.
A typo sorry, i meant that you didn't grow up in that kind of home.
As for everything else you said, i still have not heard you answer the main point. I know that people brought up in a certain society have different morals and those morals are not something higher, i'm not saying they are. That is not the point, though.
I still have not heard an answer to why, every single society on earth, even those in complete isolation, have laws against murder (even if ony of members of the group) and other crimes like stealing the property of others (in the group) and such. You cannot say it is instinct because basic survival instinct would include only survival of one, to which murder or another group member would not. You would have to say that survival instincts dictate the safety of the group, which would then violate the pure instinct of individual survival theory. So, if everyone truly wanted to survive first and foremost, even if they were travelling in a group, murder would not be problem with anyone to assure individual survival, and thus no laws would be formed, and it would violate everyone's individual interests.
And the more you think about it, the more you realize that instinct IS a higher power, greater than any individual being, muich like good or evil or human rights.
Speaking of which, neither of ya'll answered my question about human rights. If you believe in humans rights (and judging from your previous discussions elsewhere i know you both do), then how can you say there is no higher power handing out these rights if there is no such thing declaring good and evil?
Originally posted by Natopo
Well, some of you people supporting Iraq got your wish. Yesterday there was an article in the newspaper about those DARN Russians sending military supplies to Iraq. Filthy, dirty, rotten Russians.
That's as aweful as anything that has been said here.
Anyway, the rest of this thread sounds like a Christian vs an Atheistic point of view.
Originally posted by Tie Guy
As for everything else you said, i still have not heard you answer the main point. I know that people brought up in a certain society have different morals and those morals are not something higher, i'm not saying they are. That is not the point, though.
Are we really disagreeing then? Morals are ethics are good/evil.
I still have not heard an answer to why, every single society on earth, even those in complete isolation, have laws against murder (even if ony of members of the group) and other crimes like stealing the property of others (in the group) and such.
As I said before, society in general has norms, morals and laws that uphold the society itself. Humans are social animals, just like ants and lions. It wouldn't be a benefit to society if individuals were allowed to run amock and kill other members of the same species left and right.
Generally speaking, it's bad for society if people are allowed to kill, cheat and steal whenever they feel like it. But don't think it's outlawed full stop in any community. Some people always have the right to kill as they see fit. Again, the vikings - not only was it perfectly acceptable to kill, rape and mutilate the enemy, but the same was applied to "objects": thralls. Even fellow warriors were not spared as it was very common practice to take the law into your hands.
When in groups, it the group that matters. Thus, laws are put in place to ensure a working society.
When alone however, it is the individual that matters. Survival of the individual so that he/she can get back to society and mate.
You cannot say it is instinct because basic survival instinct would include only survival of one,
Basic survival instincts include the survival of the species. This is why salmon jump up waterfalls, why birds migrate and why we feel love. Love is what ties the community together, what makes them want to breed so the genepool can be advanced and what is often mistaken as a higher, universal force of "good".
And the more you think about it, the more you realize that instinct IS a higher power, greater than any individual being, muich like good or evil or human rights.
Again, there's a subtle yet very important difference between biological imperatives and cultural constructs.
Survival in society I would call a biological imperative, as we're social creatures first and foremost. However, how that society ensures its own survival is not a fixed imperative. Not stealing is obviously not a instinctual moral. Not killing anyone from the hostile community next door is not something universal. Heck, even not killing anyone from your own community is not a world spanning moral, but rather extremely dependant on how and where you are raised.
Speaking of which, neither of ya'll answered my question about human rights. If you believe in humans rights (and judging from your previous discussions elsewhere i know you both do), then how can you say there is no higher power handing out these rights if there is no such thing declaring good and evil?
Human rights are just a forced attempt at invoking these universal guidelines. The people putting these rights in place have obviously never been alone and tested to see just how far their upbringing would get them in the game of survival.
I don't believe in the human rights. I acknowledge them, and happen to agree with them because they coincide with my own morals. But I'm not as blind as to not see that they're not universal any more than it's universal to celebrate christmas. A good tradition, but the human species will live on regardless of it.
In other words...you're just arguing to be arguing. You specifically believe it is wrong to you, but you just want to make an off point.:o
I can deal with that. I've done it myself more than once, but I don't usually do it with such immoral issues as rape.:evanpiel:
Originally posted by C'jais
I don't believe in the human rights. I acknowledge them, and happen to agree with them because they coincide with my own morals. But I'm not as blind as to not see that they're not universal any more than it's universal to celebrate christmas. A good tradition, but the human species will live on regardless of it.
So basically you are saying that people don't deserve the right to live, right? You are saying that people don't deserve to have some sort of property and they don't deserve to say what they want, right? But rather that it just happens to be that way today and you accept it? Actually, it's not a question, that is what you are saying, whether you realize it or not. You accept that there are human rights to uphold communities' developed morals, but that people used to not deserve ot have the right to live, or not be raped for that matter. It's sad really, because i think it's clear people have had those rights from the beginning of time, and no one needed to teach them or tell them that they shouldn't kill their neighbor or friend.
Oh, and what isn't a "biological imperative"? You realize, i hope, that everything we do is driven biologically. Anger, happiness, sadness, depression, all of them are caused by different or different combinations and amounts of chemicals in our body/brain. Everything we do and feel and think is only electrical signals from our nerves to our brains and from our brain to our brain and from our brain to our nerves. If you choose to view survival as such, you are forced to view everything as such, which is fine, i guess.
But what causes these signals, then, that trigger instinct. You know that nothing can be done in biology or the body without some sort of stimulus, but what stimulates instinct? And more importantly, who/what put that stimulus or that instinct in place? Now, you probably choose to believe that it was evolution or something similar, and though i believe you are wrong, i won't debate that here and now. Still, where did the stimulus come from? Was it some sort of random developement that just happened to develope in every single on of the vastly different animals on earth at the same time? I, at least, think it is clear that is a stretch beyinf the elastic limit no matter how many years you give it, that every animal would have the same basic instincts at the same exact time in the evolutionary process.
The only answer, i believe, is some higher power that i cannot rightly explain without involving my religion. But still, there has to be something that drives instinct (that IS instinct, really), it cannot be broken down into anything purely and logically biological. You may choose to believe that that "higher power" is whatever you like, but how can you deny it's existance?
And do not say that it is "hard-wired", so to speak, into our brains, and thus is it's own stimulus. As i've already said, it is statisically impossible for that to happen in every species on the planet at the same time. It's not very good odds, and quite frankly believing that something created and set it all in place has a much higher chance of being true.
Still, even if you don't believe in evolution (though if you don't believe in an evolution then I don't know what you believe in because a creation would instantly justify the higher power) the point stands that anything besides some higher, driving force exists to power instinct, and, in my opinion, good and evil as well as human rights.
Let's see... C'Jais seems to believe in the "Survival of the fittest" and that it justifies whatever happens to someone... you are a darwinist, aren't you?
Originally posted by darthfergie
In other words...you're just arguing to be arguing.
In other words, a few people in here tried to argue that Saddam was "evil" and that their morals held true for everyone on earth.
I argued against that belief, and if you want to defend, start by reading my posts.
You specifically believe it is wrong to you, but you just want to make an off point.:o
Teehee. No.
I can deal with that. I've done it myself more than once, but I don't usually do it with such immoral issues as rape.:evanpiel:
So I can't talk about rape here? Or what is this about?