Lancet Study and Body Counts

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]lixy wrote:
Do you not see what the difference between what you do in your own borders and what you do outside of them is? Plus, those actions have not involved the will of the people. Their government was hijacked by a group of self-appointed representatives.
[/quote]

Because something happens in your borders does not make it right. Killing 40 million people is not any less of a crime because it was done INSIDE China.

What will your arguement when Iran gets ICBM’s and can strike any nation with a missile? Will they suddenly become evil?

122

[quote]lixy wrote:
Which part of “fall” did you miss? Do you think the Hell’s Angels have wings? Or that the “Muslims” (whatever you mean by that) can fly?
[/quote]

I’m sure he didn’t miss anything, but it is highly likely by any streach that America would drop a bomb on Stockholm.

-If a bomb would happen “to go off” it would probably have been set by Muslims. In Stockholm or Algiers.

123

[quote]lixy wrote:
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.

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.
…
[/quote]

That is a seriously horrible analogy.

124

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
That is a seriously horrible analogy.[/quote]

Why is that?

Since WWII, the American military has been responsible for the killing of Iraqis, Sudanese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Grenadese, Dominicans, Cambodians, Libyans, Iranians, Panamanians, Somalians, Haitians, Bosnians, Pakistanis, and a lot of others which I

The Chinese killed Burmese, Tibetans, Vietnamese, Koreans and Soviets.

Sifu’s argument that statistically China being more dangerous is ridiculous. Yes, Mao’s policies caused famines and such. And their military doesn’t go easy on rebels. But the fact remains that they are doing it in their own territory (you know, that thing people like to call sovereignty!) and that is analogous to you chopping off your own arm as opposed to doing the same to others.

Is that clear?

126

[quote]Chushin wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Sifu wrote:

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. 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.

Sifu, you’re missing the point. Yeah that was bad and all, but the Chinese and Russians ain’t American…lol

Exactly - and remember non-Western nations never commit acts of original evil…they are always innocent bystanders full of love and compassion until Western bullies make them act violently and radically.

Just like JohnnyBravo’s fabulous theory of - holding back tears - it’s not Hitler’s fault. Big meanies at Versailles made the Nazis do what they did.

Same with totalitarians of all stripes, communists and radical Islamists, etc. - nothing awful they do is their fault or responsibility. They were decent, hardworking folks until the West turned them into monsters.

Pathetic - but predictable.

Bravo, bravo, bravo. Excellent post.[/quote]

These threads do seem to condense around the clash of civilizations: The West, variously described, against Islamicism (or Islamic extemism). So the focus becomes a scoring system of responsibility, and the belief, echoed by JohnnyBravo, for example, that it will all work out by being reasonable and compromising.

It’s not that JB is objectionable–he isn’t, although he is astoundingly wrong on some factual observations. Its just that he is too, well, reasonable.

Am I being sarcastic? No. There is a book I intend to read, reviewed by Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the Sunday NYT Book Review The Suicide of Reason - Lee Harris - Book Review - The New York Times The Suicide of Reason by Lee Harris. The premise is simple, and poses the fanatacism of radical islam against the fanatacism of The West: reason.

“The second fanaticism that Harris identifies is one he views as infecting Western societies; he calls it a ‘fanaticism of reason.’ Reason, he says, contains within itself a potential fatality because it blinds Western leaders to the true nature of Islamic-influenced cultures. Westerners see these cultures merely as different versions of the world they know, with dominant values similar to those espoused in their own culture. But this, Harris argues, is a fatal mistake. It implies that the West fails to appreciate both its history and the true nature of its opposition.”

They are not like us and nevertheless we keep looking for reasons to treat them like us. Reasonable people here, like JB, are looking for “causes” which, if fixed and compensated, would assuage “them.” No, sorry, JB, Hezbollah has never and will never acknowledge the legitimacy of Israel, in any border, and Osama does not need reasons to bomb towers and kill westerners, which, if we were only to heed and obey, would send him back to tending his goats. The reasons are axiomatic to radical Islam: the West must end. One might doubt that a complete capitulation–a surrender of Western Civilization–would be enough to end the struggle.

Surely, reasonable Westerners will seek out reasonable Muslims, and proclaim them viable leaders, and seek to negotiate reasonable settlements. But the fanatic will always be with them and snuff out those reasonable people everywhere. This is an “asymmetric” struggle of reason and peace.

Personally, do I believe this? I will read the book and decide for myself, but I may decide to give up the Fanatacism of Reason rather than commit suicide for it.

127

[quote]lixy wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
That is a seriously horrible analogy.

Why is that?

Since WWII, the American military has been responsible for the killing of Iraqis, Sudanese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Grenadese, Dominicans, Cambodians, Libyans, Iranians, Panamanians, Somalians, Haitians, Bosnians, Pakistanis, and a lot of others which I

The Chinese killed Burmese, Tibetans, Vietnamese, Koreans and Soviets.

Sifu’s argument that statistically China being more dangerous is ridiculous. Yes, Mao’s policies caused famines and such. And their military doesn’t go easy on rebels. But the fact remains that they are doing it in their own territory (you know, that thing people like to call sovereignty!) and that is analogous to you chopping off your own arm as opposed to doing the same to others.

Is that clear?[/quote]

Nice list.

How many of those countries attacked the US first? How many were attacked over a terrorist act or threats they made to use terror? How many of those countries had genocidal governments? And how many have democratic governments thanks to our involvement? How many of those countries are now our allies?

To lump them all together and say we bombed a lot of countries is idiotic if you ignore all of the causes or results.

But should I expect any more from you?

When did the US attack Pakistan?

The Chinese killed Indians also, you forgot them in your list.

and hey, we bombed Bosnia to help the ungrateful Muslims, idiot.

Now a question of my own, for you, or anyone:

Since World War II which religion has spread the most terror?

In how many countries are there currently Muslim terrorists?

How about a list of nationalities all of which were victims of muslim extremist terror. I bet this list would dwarf all the above lists.

128

[quote]Chushin wrote:
/i] the Nazis do what they did.

Same with totalitarians of all stripes, communists and radical Islamists, etc. - nothing awful they do is their fault or responsibility. They were decent, hardworking folks until the West turned them into monsters.

Pathetic - but predictable.

Bravo, bravo, bravo. Excellent post.[/quote]

I second this.

What you have said is the result of the KGB disinformation campaign against the USA of the late 80’s early 90’s. Amusing to see it is still working on the ignorant oppressed masses.

129

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

Personally, do I believe this? I will read the book and decide for myself, but I may decide to give up the Fanatacism of Reason rather than commit suicide for it.
[/quote]

Let us know what you find out.

We have erroneously reasoned that Islam is a religion of Peace.

130

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
How many of those countries attacked the US first? [/quote]

None.

A few, but does that excuse bombing them?

In a civilized world, you don’t go bombing people based on a hunch or flimsy intelligence (see Iraq). In 1986, after careful consideration and thorough analysis, the World Court condemned the USA for “unlawful use of violence”. As far as terrorist states go, that’s as unambiguous as it gets. Then there’s Luis Posada, General Gramajo, Colonel Medrano, Junudullah, and many others.

And as far as threats of terror, the US is very very high up (first?) on the list.

Would this be a good time to point out to the record of US support to genocidal governments?

The better question is, how many have dictators because of your involvement?

Sifu challenge my assertion that the US is the most dangerous threat to peace on Earth by bringing up what some Chinese did to the Chinese.

13 January 2006.

18 Dead civilians, 10 women and children.

Yep.

Grateful Dead?

[quote]Now a question of my own, for you, or anyone:

Since World War II which religion has spread the most terror? [/quote]

Depends.

If it’s the kind that involves F-16’s, then I’ll say Zionism. If you have suicide-bombers, swords, and the like in mind, then definitely Islamism. Regular car bombs are probably set off more often by Christians (think ETA, the mafia, Russian crime, etc…) But It wouldn’t count since it’s not done in the religion.

[quote]In how many countries are there currently Muslim terrorists?
[/quote]

Hmmm…tough one. I don’t even know how many countries there are on the planet.

In any case, since this is mostly a guessing game, I’ll say about a hundred countries. Why the question?

131

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Gkhan wrote:

Your hatred of America transends the last 5 years. It is ingrained in almost every one of your posts here.

Lixy is an enormous waste of time. He isn’t all that bright, hasn’t said anything interesting in months, and recycles arguments that have been put to shame when he has raised them before.
…
Pure comedy gold.[/quote]

O, tb23, if only it were comedy!
Just look at Lixy, next post up, where he presents Zionism as a religion that uses F16s as weapons of terror, among other persistent lunacies. This is the sort of conflation that confirms him as…what? an anti-semite (not an anti-Zionist)? A loon? A dreadfully confused ideologue, bent on steady drip of mind-numbing drivel? Beneath the dignity of a response? Or just, as you say, an enormous waste of time?

132

[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
How many of those countries attacked the US first?

None.

How many were suspected a terrorist act or threats they made to use terror?

A few, but does that excuse bombing them?

In a civilized world, you don’t go bombing people based on a hunch or flimsy intelligence (see Iraq). In 1986, after careful consideration and thorough analysis, the World Court condemned the USA for “unlawful use of violence”. As far as terrorist states go, that’s as unambiguous as it gets. Then there’s Luis Posada, General Gramajo, Colonel Medrano, Junudullah, and many others.

And as far as threats of terror, the US is very very high up (first?) on the list.

How many of those countries had genocidal governments?

Would this be a good time to point out to the record of US support to genocidal governments?

And how many have democratic governments thanks to our involvement?

The better question is, how many have dictators because of your involvement?

To lump them all together and say we bombed a lot of countries is idiotic if you ignore all of the causes or results.

Sifu challenge my assertion that the US is the most dangerous threat to peace on Earth by bringing up what some Chinese did to the Chinese.

When did the US attack Pakistan?

13 January 2006.

18 Dead civilians, 10 women and children.

The Chinese killed Indians also, you forgot them in your list.

Yep.

and hey, we bombed Bosnia to help the ungrateful Muslims, idiot.

Grateful Dead?

Now a question of my own, for you, or anyone:

Since World War II which religion has spread the most terror?

Depends.

If it’s the kind that involves F-16’s, then I’ll say Zionism. If you have suicide-bombers, swords, and the like in mind, then definitely Islamism. Regular car bombs are probably set off more often by Christians (think ETA, the mafia, Russian crime, etc…) But It wouldn’t count since it’s not done in the religion.

In how many countries are there currently Muslim terrorists?

Hmmm…tough one. I don’t even know how many countries there are on the planet.

In any case, since this is mostly a guessing game, I’ll say about a hundred countries. Why the question?[/quote]

Hey, why not? It’s fair game? You can ask a question, so can I.

Reasons we bombed the countries you mentioned:

Iraqis to kick them out of Kuwait and to depost Saddam who could have given weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.

Sudanese we bombed them in response to terrorist attacks on our embassies. Bin Laden had a base there.

Koreans who were invaded by the communist north, and we saved their government, which is a democracy today and an ally.

Vietnamese we tried to do the same but failed, nevertheless, they are our ally today.

Grenadese overthrew a communist government there. They are our ally today.

Dominicans not sure about that one.

These countries are within our sphere of interest. According to your own philosophy, you should have no problem with this.

Cambodians Vietnamese Communists had bases there. Their influence set in motion an act of genocide once we pulled out of the region. Our ally today.

Libyans their terrorists bombed a disco in Germany.
Our ally today.

Iranians When did we bomb Iran? we shot down an airplane but never bombed them.

Panamanians deposed a dictator there. Ally today.

Somalians went there to feed starving people. A warlord started the violence which ended with Blackhawk down.

Haitians not sure about this one, but the country was in chaos for a long time.

Bosnians already mentioned it. We are fighting to keep Kosovo from becoming Serb controlled to this day.

Pakistanis we were after the second in command of al-qaeda and missed him. To even bring this up, after all the killing of innocents this man is responcible for makes you a bigger hypocrite than I thought.

You’d probably have been one of the guys who bitched when they missed killing Hitler.

I can’t believe someone who allegedly hates al-qaeda would even bring this up…typical i guess…

moving on…

As far as the dictators you mentioned. The KGB has the US beat in every way as far as their influence of backing dictators, starting rebellions and crushing resistance.

Would you like a list of the countries the Communists and KGB screwed up. I bet it’s a bigger list. Plus the fact that the Commies taught terrorism. So a lot of the terrorism problems rightfully could be traced back there if you were inclined to look rather than constantly condemning the US.

133

[quote]lixy wrote:
When did the US attack Pakistan?

13 January 2006.

18 Dead civilians, 10 women and children.
[/quote]

I bet terrorists killed 10 times that many in Pakistan in a month.

134

[quote]Sifu wrote:
No Johnny the allies did not know about Hitler when the treaty of Versailles was drawn up. Hitler was a nobody then. Sure if the end of the war had not been handled like the Franco Prussian war then Hitler may have never risen to power. But by the nineteen thirties when he had come to power that was all water under the bridge. So the validity of my point remains.
[/quote]
This is insulting. Of course no one knew who Hitler was at the Versailles sining.

Lets just avoid resurrecting the Appeasement debate as we have too many other points to discuss.

The support of OBL is more than interesting. The Bush Doctrine states that not only terrorist groups must be brought to justice but the governments that support them. Clearly, history is not without a sense of humor.

Don’t you see how these arguments amount to, “Yes actions of the powerful were atrocious but that’s all water under the bridge now and we gotta do what we gotta do and that’s pay for our own security with the lives of innocent people who don’t really matter to us.”

Is it not pertinent to, at the very least, cast shame upon the individuals who opened the floodgates that washed away the bridge. Mentioning in passing that mistakes have been made is insulting those that suffered under those mistakes.

135

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Seeing as how you have only been a participant for a whopping 60-some-odd posts, you might want to look at the archives. You bring nothing new to the discussion. Everything you have said is nothing but a rehash, and has been soundly thwarted time and again.

To be taken seriously - you must have a modicum of insight. I am sorry to disappoint you, but parroting old, well defeated ideas is not insight. You fail miserably on the insight part.
[/quote]
I sincerely doubt that the Iraq invasion debate has been concluded, even by the distinguished panel that occupies this forum. But I have to doubt that the issue was resolved in your mind from the very beginning.

You can of course make claims about the forum history with impunity, knowing that I will never go sifting through old threads each with an endless number of posts.

I’m open to the idea of taking you seriously. If you’re so tired of dealing with this debate then why don’t you leave it those that haven’t lost their fighting spirit.

I didn’t think it was worth commenting on. I acknowledged the I had repeatedly referred to international law. It’s all a matter of perception. Some people perceive a horse as being dead even though the horse just kicked them the wall of the stable.

What a strange comment. I would have thought that my opinions on the apparent incompatibility of war and morality would have been obvious. Don’t know why I would have thought that.

136

[quote]johnnybravo30 wrote:

One could argue that treating multiple tumors with a chainsaw is a more appropriate analogy.

But to continue with the analogy, a patient is supposed to have some say in the treatment that he or she receives. While the doctor may knick his finger with the surgical implement, it is ultimately the patient that must face the agony and possibility of death associated with a risky procedure. As this is the case, any doctor that performed a risky procedure without a patient’s permission would be locked up. The fact the doctor and patient might be better off in the end would be nearly irrelevant to the court proceedings.[/quote]

Why complicate this? Your analogy does not fit as you are saying ask the cancer if it wants to be removed.

And yes we did have a large portion of Iraq supporting the ousting of Iraq, but they did not trust us since after the first war they thought they could overthrow Saddam, and we would support them. But we abandoned them. (This was a big mistake that America does deserve the blame for.)

Actually his regime was about to collapse, and would have before we attacked had the food for oil deal not been put into place. Suddenly he was awash in funds, and all those people who supposed to get help, got nothing, but it made people feel good, and a whole lot of money for a lot of people through the UN.

137

[quote]lixy wrote:

If radical Islam is a threat to anything, it’s to Islam itself.[/quote]

Yes it is a threat to Islam, twisting various Koranic verses, and quoting only parts to people who only know what they are told. (Like the idea that suicide is suddenly not a sin.)

But with a billion Muslims, and 10% radicalized, (a very conservative estimate,) that leaves 100 million dangerous nuts out there.

138

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Your feckless citing of “international law” is meaningless - if you don’t think so, go file a complaint in the court that would sit in judgment of the war “crime” of attacking Iraq. Best of luck.
[/quote]
I do not need to be told that international law has never and will likely never do an ounce of good for Iraq. Anyone that optimistic is a fool, and that fact is tragic.

It is interesting, though purely and obviously academic, to note origins of the Grotian Moment. But I doubt that you would have included this paragraph were it not for the fact that certain anointed liberal heroes were proponents of this unofficial and convenient revision of signed agreements. I imagine this is a very useful debate technique against your usual liberal opponents who begin to question their apprehensions towards this policy once the holy name of Clinton has been dropped. I however would be happy to chat all night about the barbarism of the Clinton administration.

Not to sing the praises of Kofi Annan, but to include him as part and parcel to the ideological shift that allowed the justification for the Iraq invasion without noting that he opposed that invasion is unfair.

I disagree with the assertion that morality is somehow inherently political. The language that makes up principle of moral universality is only ambiguous to the kind of vermin that read a document written to free slaves and twists it into a justification for corporate personhood, which eliminates both lawyers and politicians. The opinions of those who genuinely oppose a pre-emptive war only because they want to see the “hyperpower” (thunderbolt32, 2008?) fail can be discarded. By the way, I’m surprised you used the term “rogue state” seeing as the international law and the wishes of the world community that a rogue state rejects are evidently meaningless. I would expect you to see no value in such a term. The other reason your use of the term is interesting is the pure irony of it, as in this case the exercising power has nothing but contempt for the same quaint “laws” that the “rogue state” rejects.

No need to name call. What does it say about a man that gains a sense of satisfaction and superiority from cynically telling those that seek a better world that their cause is pointless?

There is no doubt that you are well versed in the political and systemic challenges that face any meaningful form of international justice. I haven’t heard you acknowledge the causes of this current state. The fundamental problem is that the powerful ignore any established standards. They refuse to enforce them in a humane manner, and most egregiously, refuse to abide by them. Now, the gaping disconnect between opinion on foreign policy of populations and governments, lets take The United States and Iran, is well documented. By a solid majority in both countries, the populations quite reasonably want their governments to abide by international law. The state of Iranian democracy is for Iranians to fix, but this suggests that if the hyperpower was a functioning democracy, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

When viewed as whole, as you rightly describe (I think), the three seemingly separate events (Gulf war, sanctions/tactical bombing, and 2003 invasion) are very akin to a medieval siege, wherein the invader would surround a fortress and wait for the food to run out and the resistance to soften.

You’re too smart to peddle the “in the interest of international security” argument to justify such loss of life. As a reader of history, I’m sure you are aware of the period in which Saddam, who was a despot from conception (actually not much of an exaggeration), posed the greatest threat to international security. His power and levels of atrocities climaxed in the later half of the 1980’s when he had the full support of the United States, Britain, Western Europe, Russia, and most of the Arab states. Now, a telling gauge of the seriousness of the threat posed by Saddam was the fact that despite the aid of basically the entire world, subsidized by you the taxpayer, he couldn’t defeat an Iran that had just gone through a revolution that saw the country’s entire officer core liquidated and the army left in shambles.

If we were to be entirely honest, the biggest threat posed by Saddam was to the current world order in the event he was overthrown by a popular movement. The outcome of a lose Shia alliance between Iran, Iraq, and the oil producing regions of Saudi Arabia (whose Shia majority is feeling like seceding) all trading oil in Euros would be catastrophic for the US. It may be worth noting that Saddam started selling his oil in Euros in, I believe, 1999.

[quote]
Rational and moral people understand that the Nuremburg principles were aspirational in nature but failed to be a blinding “case” by which other wars could be measured in any “legal” sense. Stop using them as such - they are useful guideposts, but they are not rules by which “defendants” - who enjoy the presumption of innocence, not applicable here - can use as a shield.[/quote]

Rational people understand that the Nuremberg Tribunals were essentially meaningless as anything more than a punishment to the loser. A point illustrated when a German submarine officer who was charged with torpedoing undefended, civilian shipping, called the namesake of the USS Nimitz as a defense witness. Nimitz testified to have perpetrated the same crimes as the German, and rather than hold them both to the standards established by the court they were both absolved of any wrong doing. It is curious that you lumped rational and moral people together. Not that the two are mutually exclusive, simply that moral people should be appalled at how pointless the whole affair has become.

139

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Just like JohnnyBravo’s fabulous theory of - holding back tears - it’s not Hitler’s fault. Big meanies at Versailles made the Nazis do what they did.

[/quote]

If I were a bigger man, this wouldn’t even be worth dignifying with a response.

This is a complete distortion of my post and you know it. The reparations forced upon the Germans provided the soil perfect for rearing an evil seed. Only Hitler was responsible for the actions of Hitler, but I’m waiting patiently for your Houdini act of misinformation that demonstrates how Hitler would have had the opportunity to reign down a holocaust on anything more than the cockroaches in his apartment had the reparations not brought Germany to it’s knees.

140

[quote]johnnybravo30 wrote:
I sincerely doubt that the Iraq invasion debate has been concluded, even by the distinguished panel that occupies this forum. But I have to doubt that the issue was resolved in your mind from the very beginning.[/quote]

It probably will never be concluded. But let’s try something. How about you and lixy bring something to the table that is not as old as the war? How about you guys make an effort at taking the argument somewhere besides in 5 year circle this “debate” has been in this forum?

This issue? My only issue has been that we prosecuted this war like a bunch of pussies. It should have been much deadlier, and much shorter.

Then why do you show up thinking you have anything new to add to this debate? I can tell you there have been many others waving international law around as if it means something. Like I said - you bring nothing new.

IS it a debate, or a fight? The debate, as far as it goes in this forum, is old and stale. If you had bothered to pay attention, I have said this before. IF you want a fight, try entering one that is not so old and stale.

There’s no kick left in this horse. There hasn’t been for some time. It’s dead. You didn’t get your way, and the war will be ending soon.

[quote]Leave morality out of it. Name one single “moral war”. You can’t. Wars are about death and destruction. Period.

What a strange comment. I would have thought that my opinions on the apparent incompatibility of war and morality would have been obvious. Don’t know why I would have thought that.
[/quote]

I don’t know why you thought you needed to mention it.