[Bubbaloo]

Brian .. Sometimes silence is golden.

Try and expand your understanding of what has happened over there..
Number one, ... we shouldn't be there. Number two, .. dictator with big guns or not, ..we upset the stability of that nation.

Silence has never suited me.

Try and expand your understanding of what has happened over there in the past before we intervened. We took a stand and took action against a dictator who was committing crimes against certain groups of people in his own damn country. Remember the testing of biological weapons against the Iraqi Kurds? He wiped out entire villages while the world turned their heads to look away. Where is the Youtube video of that?

How quickly people forget the past. Now a video surfaces of a couple of thugs getting shredded, and people are appalled at the violence and want things to go back to the way they were before.

The U.S. is a nation that takes action when necessary, to the dismay of pacifists everywhere. The question is... which is worse, a nation that takes action against atrocities, or a world that allows such atrocities.

Anyone who thinks things were better in Iraq before we "lent a hand" should be awarded with a 7-day all expenses paid vacation inside one of Mr. Hussein's infamous "rape rooms".

[ivox3]

Your making history 'fit' into your argument.

I ask this, ... " What is the official reasoning that the US declared for entering into Iraq ? "

Hint: It wasn't because Saddam was a bad boy. The ledge your standing on ---- never existed.

** This doesn't mean that removing SH wasn't a good thing, ...just that using it as an argument for being there doesn't hold any water.

[Bubbaloo]

You may be right...

The fundamental philosophical question remains, regardless of politics; Which is worse, action or inaction in the face of atrocity?

[NicoR44]

Well, I think the main reason that Bush attacked Iraq is because he couldn't find Osama, and at that time he got a lot of negative publicity, he than choose to focus on Sadam Hussein to get his glory.
In the mean time Osama is still on the loose, makes me think if they really want to capture him at all.

I'm pretty sure that with with all modern methods and intelligence it shouldn't be that difficult to capture that one guy.

This of course is just how it comes over to me, and I of course might be totally wrong.

I'm always thinking, if the main reason to invade Iraq was to get the dictator Sadam; then why don't free the people of North Korea and for that matter the people of Iran who get shot when they protest against the regime.

Anyway it's good to get some good opinions here, we don't always have to agree

[Bubbaloo]

Anyway it's good to get some good opinions here, we don't always have to agree

So true. It's good to be in the countries where your opinions won't get you dragged out of your home and executed in the street.

[jo]

who do we think we are to try to establish a civilized government and society for them.

I totally agree!
Hey: but maybe it happened because "some US citizens" wanted their oil?

Let them go back to being ruled by the dictator with the most guns.

Mmhhhh, a dictator "some US citizens" helped in the past with intelligence and weapons?



Ciao, Gio

[Bubbaloo]

Which is worse, action or inaction in the face of atrocity?

[JDHill]

Brian, that question, as presented, represents hardly more than an incomplete thought. Advocating for action implies the belief that a justification for such action exists. The assertion that atrocities are occurring, however, is only an emotion appeal and does not constitute a comprehensive line of reasoning; mainly:

a) it does not speak to the question of jurisdiction: on what grounds do you claim a right to act?
b) it is arbitrarily selective: why do only certain cases call for action?
c) it does not indicate what the limits of action are to be: what is the scope, and why?

To be clear: I am not arguing that atrocities do not occur, nor am I minimizing the tragedy of that fact. I am pointing out that the emotional argument does not even make an attempt to provide answers to many very necessary and important questions.

Furthermore, I do not prefer the use of abstract terms like 'action' in this context; such usage avoids the need to draw a distinction between its two (in questions of war, that is) fundamentally different forms: offensive and defensive action. There are two very different discussions hiding in your question, and they will tend to follow wildly divergent paths of logic and justification.

[jo]

JDHill, chapeau!

Ciao, Gio

[iker]

Which is worse, action or inaction in the face of atrocity?

...considering as well that there's a lot of people who consider those kinds of actions an atrocity, it's all a snake that bites its own tail, isn't it?

[Bubbaloo]

JDHill, chapeau!

Ciao, Gio

I see a cheerleader has arrived. Do you have anything to add besides a pompom dance and a high-five?

JD, I hoped you would join in the discussion. You always bring fresh insight into these kinds of topics.

offensive and defensive action

Is it considered offensive towards the tyrant dictator and henchmen... or defensive, defending those who are powerless to defend themselves?

a) it does not speak to the question of jurisdiction: on what grounds do you claim a right to act?
b) it is arbitrarily selective: why do only certain cases call for action?
c) it does not indicate what the limits of action are to be: what is the scope, and why?

Any point made can be broken down into sub-points again and again until infinity, twisting, turning and reshaping as it goes until you forget what the original point was, as any lawyer knows. Was my argument too general? Yes, as it was meant to be.

Alias iker, you're right, sometimes you become what you hate. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. All it takes for evil to triumph is for a good man (nation) to do nothing. Etc. etc. Enter your catch phrase here.

[rusteberg]

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

if you are not part of the solution, there is good money to be made in prolonging the problem....
sorry, i couldn't resist..... carry on ladies.

[Bubbaloo]

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

if you are not part of the solution, there is good money to be made in prolonging the problem....
sorry, i couldn't resist..... carry on ladies.

You suck.

[ivox3]

Any point made can be broken down into sub-points again and again until infinity, twisting, turning and reshaping as it goes until you forget what the original point was, as any lawyer knows. Was my argument too general? Yes, as it was meant to be.

In court that is kind of true, but eventually the judge( in civil cases) will determine that there is no longer any material issues of fact remaining and render summary judgment.
In real world terms, such as this thread, ..you eventually cornered by the indivisible truth, ..no infinity here ---game over ladies.

[Bubbaloo]

you eventually cornered by the indivisible truth, ..no infinity here ---game over ladies.

A conclusion is where you end up when you're finished thinking.

eventually the judge( in civil cases) will determine that there is no longer any material issues of fact remaining and render summary judgment.

I am the law.

I'd quote something from Blade Runner, but I haven't seen it.