Lancet Study and Body Counts

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]The Mage wrote:
lixy wrote:

A bunch of crap, full of hate and biased ignorance.

i now know an intelligent discussion is lost on you. The whole idea of us being responsible for everything Iraq did in the 1980’s is actually America’s fault because we attacked them in 2003?

Then the whole rape little girls comment, that shows me you completely lost it.

I did believe you were debating simply because you were against the invasion. But now I do not believe that. If any other country would have, you wouldn’t have batted an eye.

The only reason you are discussing this at all is from a deep-seated hate of America.

I have never blindly accepted this war, I have thought seriously about it both before and after. And I am still convinced that the world is a better place because of this.

Yet the argument I am hearing from you is not, “I am against this action because…” Instead what I am hearing from you is, “America is evil, and I hate it and all Americans because…”

Would I have preferred a non-military action? Sure, I am no fan of war. But war is like surgery. Sometimes a cancer needs to be cut out for a patient to survive. And I saw Saddam as a cancer, already breeding into his 2 cancerous sons.

Sometimes chemotherapy needs to be used. It is terrible on the whole body, but again it is never as bad as the cancer is.

I could still be convinced, if there is a good, and real argument that is actually about the war. I will never be convinced by faulty logic, politically biased websites, (even those that purport to be unbiased, but have obvious signs they are not,) or the most common, gossip.[/quote]

You are correct about lixy. He is not here for sincere discussion. He is here to spread shit. This is has been demonstrated repeatedly.

82

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Lixy you still haven’t come up with those statistics you were touting. I am starting to think you were just talking trash. [/quote]

What stats?

Hang on a second, I thought Europe was overtaken by hordes of Muslims killing and raping their way. Now you say that “everyone is law abiding”. I don’t know what to believe anymore.

Anyway, if expecting violence and war to be the last resort is your definition of idealism, then so be it. I don’t believe in that preemptive crap your administration has been pulling and - along with the majority of the world population - I think all the arguments presented were mere cover-ups.

I like proactive very much, but when it involves slaughtering people based on some false accusation, I file that under the “crime” category.

Despite history showing that had we done some proactive things in the past we could have saved the world a lot of misery.

So your argument here is “could be worse”?

I honestly do not think neither the Chinese nor the Russians, will take 100,000 soldiers, ship them to the other side of the planet, attack and invade a country that didn’t attack them.

Whatever happened to living in peace?

83

[quote]Sifu wrote:
You think that people should only be reactive instead of proactive. Despite history showing that had we done some proactive things in the past we could have saved the world a lot of misery.
[/quote]

For the sake of debate, would you like to give some examples?

84

[quote]lixy wrote:
Sifu wrote:

Statistically speaking and as far as dangerous countries go, the USA takes the cake.

[/quote]

You are the one who brought up statistics.

85

[quote]The Mage wrote:
Since you blame all of America for the act of a few, which is not only against our laws, but against military code of justice laws, and they do not take things like this lightly. [/quote]

Where do you come up with this stuff?

In 2003, Half a million Americans gathered in New-York in protest of a war that didn’t even begin at the time. Today, the opposition is just huge, and Bush’s approval rates are as low as ever (mainly) because of the war.

Regardless, when elected representatives decide to invade a country unprovoked, and war crimes ensue, whom I am supposed to blame? Santa?

What you fail to realize, is that this is among the few stories that surface. Iraq has been turned into a “Wild West”. Basic probability tells me that a lot of cases go unheard of or covered up.

And since we’re on the subject, how about the crimes committed by those trigger-happy Blackwater operatives? Who’s punishing them? God?

What? You mean that they do not mention Mahmoudiya’s many tourist attraction, like the famous entertainment park where you shoot people instead of ducks? How about the fine cuisine and their much talked about rice a la boom-you’re-dead.

I take it that you’re unfamiliar with Wiki policy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DUE#Undue_weight

Where exactly do you see me blaming “every American”? I pointed out that most Americans are opposed to the war already.

If they’re financing him, and validating his actions through democratic channels, sure.

I never considered “Muslims” to be a monolithic bloc in the first place.

[quote]No, I have gone out of my way to point that out, and to point out that the majority are not connected to extremism, nor support it.

Do you do the same? No. [/quote]

The situation is entirely different.

The Mahmoudiya massacre (among others) represents the unambiguous issues. On a grander scale, the whole war was a collective rape of the Iraqis right to self-determination.

The war was a blatant act of aggression. Abu Ghraib & co are merely the most pronounced. Dropping a bomb on a civilian building is a lot worse than those so-called scandals.

And no, I don’t blame any of it on “every American”. I might be an idealist, but I’m not naive enough to think a regular citizen can do a thing about the MIC and other lobbies that are in bed with the White House. If you go back two pages, you’ll see that the only reason I used the “you” pronoun is in reply to one of your “we don’t…”.

True. But you are the one impermeable to reason.

Your arguments revolve around “we are better than Al-Qaeda” and “Saddam was a monster”. The kind of logic whereby you justify the supreme international crime with this can be debunked by a child.

86

[quote]Sifu wrote:
lixy wrote:
Sifu wrote:

Statistically speaking and as far as dangerous countries go, the USA takes the cake.

You are the one who brought up statistics.
[/quote]

Again, is there a country on Earth that killed more foreigners since WWII?

87

[quote]lixy wrote:
…Your arguments revolve around “we are better than Al-Qaeda” and “Saddam was a monster”. The kind of logic whereby you justify the supreme international crime with this can be debunked by a child.[/quote]

Deposing Saddam was “the supreme international crime”?

You are an idiot. Go kill yourself.

88

[quote]johnnybravo30 wrote:
Sifu wrote:
You think that people should only be reactive instead of proactive. Despite history showing that had we done some proactive things in the past we could have saved the world a lot of misery.

For the sake of debate, would you like to give some examples?[/quote]

When it became apparent that Germany was rearming the European powers could have stepped in and done something when it would have been a lot easier.

Or when Bin Laden held a news conference where he declared Jihad on the west, we should have done something about him then instead of waiting until after several thousand people were dead.

In Lixy’s case a classic example was something he posted about a policeman who cofronted two perps with his gun drawn. One complied with his orders but the other went into his pants and pulled an object out. After the cop shot him it turned out the object was a cell phone not a gun. Lixy feels that a cop in such a situation should not shoot until after he has been shot at first. Lixy thinks that cops should risk their lives unneccessarily.

Lixy exhibits a typical, European liberal, belief that it is okay for people to engage in bad behaviour, but it is not okay if their bad behaviour brings misfortune upon themselves.

89

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
…Your arguments revolve around “we are better than Al-Qaeda” and “Saddam was a monster”. The kind of logic whereby you justify the supreme international crime with this can be debunked by a child.

Deposing Saddam was “the supreme international crime”?

You are an idiot. Go kill yourself.[/quote]

Wars of aggression were established as the supreme international crime by the Nuremberg tribunals, upon the reasoning that they facilitate all the misdeeds that follow. If you have a problem with this reasoning, perhaps you should join the John Bolton and Richard Perle Fan Clubs and take up permanent residence on Hypocrisy Island.

90

[quote]lixy wrote:
Sifu wrote:
lixy wrote:
Sifu wrote:

Statistically speaking and as far as dangerous countries go, the USA takes the cake.

You are the one who brought up statistics.

Again, is there a country on Earth that killed more foreigners since WWII?[/quote]

So now you are going to change it be foreigners only. You did not say anything about foreigners only in this post I have quoted.

Russia killed several million eastern europeans after world war two. Their invasion of Afghanistan killed around two million. China has killed a good amount of people also. If one were to add in people who are not foreigners those two countries far outstrip the US.

During the reign of Mao the Chinese killed at least forty million of their own people. Their invasion of Tibet has killed over a million. Then there are their constant threats to Taiwan. Their invasion of Vietnam. Their invasion of India. Their arming Pakistan with nuclear weapons so they can threaten the Hindus in India. Their North Korean puppet state has killed millions.

Since the end of world war two the Russians and Chinese have been deadly to share a common border with. The same cannot be said for the United States.

91

[quote]Sifu wrote:
johnnybravo30 wrote:
Sifu wrote:
You think that people should only be reactive instead of proactive. Despite history showing that had we done some proactive things in the past we could have saved the world a lot of misery.

For the sake of debate, would you like to give some examples?

When it became apparent that Germany was rearming the European powers could have stepped in and done something when it would have been a lot easier.
[/quote]

This example would be valid if it wasn’t so limited in scope. Anyone that knows anything about the period between WWI and WWII knows that Hitler’s rise to power would not have happened had it not been for the brutal reparations that were imposed on Germany. The economic and cultural disaster that was post-WWI Germany proved an ideal breeding ground for radical nationalism and eventual dictatorship.

Had WWI ended on a note of compassion for the innocent people caught up in the conflict rather than a note of malice, the need to confront Hitler before 1939 would never have arisen. He would have died a failed artist in some bizarre S&M accident at a gay bathhouse in Berlin, never having been needed by a country in ruin.

Far be it from me to say O.B.L. should be left to his own devices. It would have been wise to pick him up. But again, this example is limited in scope. It might have been wise for the CIA to have never trained, equiped, and funded him in the first place. It would be wise to not cut the Saudi royal family members that fund him so much slack. If the then head of the ISI (Pakistani Intelligence) transfers money to Mohamed Atta in Florida just days before 9/11, then why isn’t the ISI considered a terrorist organization? The O.B.L. that we know today is, in part, a product of proactive involvement.

Both examples you gave could have been, at the very least, significantly mitigated with nonviolent pro-activity and what should be common sense.

92

[quote]Sifu wrote:
So now you are going to change it be foreigners only. You did not say anything about foreigners only in this post I have quoted. [/quote]

If you decide to cut off your arm, that’s your business. If you go to the other side of town, and start chopping people’s limbs off, that’s where we have a problem.

I thought that was self-evident.

Still, the US remains the most dangerous threat to peace worldwide. If a bomb was to fall on Stockholm tomorrow, chances are that it’ll be dropped by Americans. If Algeria is invaded next week, it will most likely be invaded by Americans.

The world ranks your country as the biggest threat to peace.

Heck, even your closest allies think you’ve gone bonkers.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/03/america/NA_GEN_World_Views_of_Bush.php

[quote]Russia killed several million eastern europeans after world war two. Their invasion of Afghanistan killed around two million. China has killed a good amount of people also. If one were to add in people who are not foreigners those two countries far outstrip the US.

During the reign of Mao the Chinese killed at least forty million of their own people. Their invasion of Tibet has killed over a million. Then there are their constant threats to Taiwan. Their invasion of Vietnam. Their invasion of India. Their arming Pakistan with nuclear weapons so they can threaten the Hindus in India. Their North Korean puppet state has killed millions.

Since the end of world war two the Russians and Chinese have been deadly to share a common border with. The same cannot be said for the United States. [/quote]

By Russia, I’m guessing you mean CCCP. Right?

Tell you what, China and the Soviet Union are not democracies. I don’t think their people would have put up with the massacres committed in their name if they had a say in it.

93

[quote]johnnybravo30 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
…Your arguments revolve around “we are better than Al-Qaeda” and “Saddam was a monster”. The kind of logic whereby you justify the supreme international crime with this can be debunked by a child.

Deposing Saddam was “the supreme international crime”?

You are an idiot. Go kill yourself.

Wars of aggression were established as the supreme international crime by the Nuremberg tribunals, upon the reasoning that they facilitate all the misdeeds that follow. If you have a problem with this reasoning, perhaps you should join the John Bolton and Richard Perle Fan Clubs and take up permanent residence on Hypocrisy Island.[/quote]

How many times must you bring up the Nuremburg Tribunals? This is like the 18th time you have mentioned them.

The U.S.'s invasion of Iraq is not an act of aggression. It is not an act of unilateral imperialism.

What the US-led coalition did is not anywhere close to being a war crime.

Why must you continue to bring it up? DO you feel that if you say it often enough, you will be taken seriously?

Maybe you and lixy could get together and beat a different dead horse. Both of your arguments are baseless and pretty much a regurgitation of 5 years of the same rhetoric.

94

[quote]rainjack wrote:
The U.S.'s invasion of Iraq is not an act of aggression. [/quote]

Whatever gets you to sleep at night.

95

[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
The U.S.'s invasion of Iraq is not an act of aggression.

Whatever gets you to sleep at night.[/quote]

The truth usually does.

You might try it some time in lieu of ass raping an 11-year old.

96

[quote]rainjack wrote:
lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
The U.S.'s invasion of Iraq is not an act of aggression.

Whatever gets you to sleep at night.

The truth usually does. [/quote]

If it wasn’t an act of aggression, then what was it? Legitimate defense? Kindness towards Iraqis? Do tell.

And since you claim to know “the truth”, allow me to ask why is it that the majority of your compatriots oppose the war?

97

And again the crap keeps getting deeper.

The biggest threat to the world? Radical Islam.

I have a friend who was an exile from Afghanistan, but now he is able to travel back there and visit his family, because the Taliban is not longer going to kill him. (And yes he is Muslim.)

I have another friend from Africa. His family left for America because Radical Muslims were committing genocide on his people.

Have you seen the last video out of Al-Qaeda? They attack America because we are not a Muslim country. And they will stop if we convert.

98

[quote]rainjack wrote:
johnnybravo30 wrote:

Wars of aggression were established as the supreme international crime by the Nuremberg tribunals, upon the reasoning that they facilitate all the misdeeds that follow. If you have a problem with this reasoning, perhaps you should join the John Bolton and Richard Perle Fan Clubs and take up permanent residence on Hypocrisy Island.

How many times must you bring up the Nuremburg Tribunals? This is like the 18th time you have mentioned them.
[/quote]
I think it is the third time.

In adult discussion, one has to be able to point out flaws in the opponent’s logic or knowledge. Simply saying that what the opponent is saying untrue without offering anything to the contrary barely constitutes an attempt at argument. This doesn’t need to turn into a highly academic forum in which every post must be fully sourced by expensive scholarly journals, but your comments should at least reflect some acquired knowledge.

You should probably read the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. The Language is not ambiguous. But if you truly can’t handle this assertion anymore, we could discuss war crimes that occurred after the invasion. Plenty of debate topics there, all beyond partisanship and person bias.

I will continue to bring it up when it is pertinent to do so. Zap clearly had no idea of what the term ‘aggression’ means and where it came from. If you have objections to the conclusions reached by the council that tried the Nazis and established much of the modern code of ethics (however hypocritically) in international affairs, or how those conclusions apply to the topic at hand, please present those objections.

If you repetitively state that the invasion of Iraq was not an act of aggression just because the very notion is appalling to your sense of nationalism, do you expect rational and moral people to take you seriously?

99

[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
The U.S.'s invasion of Iraq is not an act of aggression.

Whatever gets you to sleep at night.

The truth usually does.

If it wasn’t an act of aggression, then what was it? Legitimate defense? Kindness towards Iraqis? Do tell.

And since you claim to know “the truth”, allow me to ask why is it that the majority of your compatriots oppose the war?[/quote]

Good god. How many times must this be discussed? The US went to Iraq with an international coalition of countries and the blessing of the UN to enforce the umpteen UN resolutions that Hussein had violated since the end of the first Gulf War.

People are tired of the war. They were not opposed to the invasion. Two different issues. But look who I am talking to. You can’t get your baby-fucking little brain past “Bush Lied - People Died”.

Grow the fuck up and perhaps start gaining an interest in females that have already begun their menstrual cycle.

100

[quote]johnnybravo30 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
johnnybravo30 wrote:

Wars of aggression were established as the supreme international crime by the Nuremberg tribunals, upon the reasoning that they facilitate all the misdeeds that follow. If you have a problem with this reasoning, perhaps you should join the John Bolton and Richard Perle Fan Clubs and take up permanent residence on Hypocrisy Island.

How many times must you bring up the Nuremburg Tribunals? This is like the 18th time you have mentioned them.

I think it is the third time.

The U.S.'s invasion of Iraq is not an act of aggression. It is not an act of unilateral imperialism.

In adult discussion, one has to be able to point out flaws in the opponent’s logic or knowledge. Simply saying that what the opponent is saying untrue without offering anything to the contrary barely constitutes an attempt at argument. This doesn’t need to turn into a highly academic forum in which every post must be fully sourced by expensive scholarly journals, but your comments should at least reflect some acquired knowledge.

What the US-led coalition did is not anywhere close to being a war crime.

You should probably read the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. The Language is not ambiguous. But if you truly can’t handle this assertion anymore, we could discuss war crimes that occurred after the invasion. Plenty of debate topics there, all beyond partisanship and person bias.

Why must you continue to bring it up? DO you feel that if you say it often enough, you will be taken seriously?

I will continue to bring it up when it is pertinent to do so. Zap clearly had no idea of what the term ‘aggression’ means and where it came from. If you have objections to the conclusions reached by the council that tried the Nazis and established much of the modern code of ethics (however hypocritically) in international affairs, or how those conclusions apply to the topic at hand, please present those objections.

If you repetitively state that the invasion of Iraq was not an act of aggression just because the very notion is appalling to your sense of nationalism, do you expect rational and moral people to take you seriously?[/quote]

It would do you good - especially since you seem to pride yourself in how smart you are - to learn how to properly use the quote function.

I am sure you will figure it out. You just have to give it a try.