Boo Radley
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 37,066
- Reaction score
- 7,028
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
lol no
Really, yes. He is exactly right. :coffeepap
lol no
Really, yes. He is exactly right. :coffeepap
By that logic, the British created the environment for the US to become a world power, so they're ultimately responsible for this.
William the Conqueror is to blame.
lol funny stuff
Not exactly. But the British did have there share of imperialistic moments and are responsible for the damage they caused as well. The war and the killing doesn't happen if the US doesn't invade. It's just that simple.
The US doesn't invade unless the British colonize the Atlantic seaboard, thus giving an opportunity for the US to become a nation that eventually has the opportunity to invade Iraq.
Either people are responsible for their actions or they're not. Apparently, you were vehemently against the war and are looking to pile things on it in an attempt to create a more robust moral high ground?
You're the one saying we're not responsible for our actions.
Apparently you think any consequence of our actions should be blamed on others.
This is becoming the way if think for to many today. We not invade, the killing doesn't happen. We invaded a country on a pretext, with no reasonable justification, costing hundreds of thousands of lives, but lack the balls to take responsibility (or at least one do).
No, I attribute the deaths to the indirect results of the US action. We created the environment in which death and misery prevailed, like fertilizing a garden.
......The problem with your assessment is that it ignores virtually every single Muslim nation in the region. Muslims throughout the region have shown a great talent for slaughtering their own. The entire Arab Spring is full of slaughter and execution. Palestinians have had more blood shed at the hands of other Muslims in two separate events than it has seen from Israel in over 60 years of warfare. Syria, by itself, has proven over the last 2 years what Muslim rage is capable of within its own societies. Afghans are constantly being slaughtered by fellow Muslims. But Iraqis are somehow a product of American invasion? And when Syrians start dying as a result of an American issued weapon will Muslim rage in Syria be an American fault as well?
With or without American intrusion, Muslims have proven to be their own worst enemies. Blaming the "foreign devil" is a scapegoat in which shallow, ignorant Westerners have been all too eager to legitimize.
Tribal superiority is the goal of the Muslim world. You see it every single day in the news between Cairo and Islamabad. Iraqis have their own culture to blame for their blood. Maybe more Westerners should start seeing this region for what it is rather than offering them legitimacies in their denials.
No.
The US is responsible for the people that the US killed. The Iraqi army is responsible for the people that they killed. The JRTN is responsible for the people they killed. The JAM is responsible for the people they killed. The AAS is responsible for the people they killed.
People are responsible for their own actions. It's not just the US that is responsible for their own actions and...everyone else's too. That makes no sense.
I think people that killed people are to blame for those deaths.
I take responsibility for all the people I've killed in my life.
So I you let a hold play with a loaded pistol, and the child ****s some, you hold no blame? No, you're trying to make excuses because apparently you have low nation esteem and can't accept responsibility. No invasion, these deaths and suffering don't happen.
Right! No OIL in Cairo or Islamabad. See it for what it is.
Did you just compare the entire nation of Iraq to children? I hope they don't read that and take the liberal Westerner to heart, they might get "low nation esteem". Which apparently is the only reason anyone could possibly have a different viewpoint from your own.
lol
I hope you take responsibility for that horrible post and argument.
Not really. Just chose a simple analogy, hoping you could then see his your actions have consequence. Invasion creates a vacuum. In terms of knowing predictable results, you have to know going in that it will lead to struggle, deaths, a fight for power. Just as you know there will be potentially dangerous consequences to letting. Child play with a gun. It is not that a nation is like a child, but that the consequences of the actions are equally predictable. So, focus on the point, and try not to dodge it.
So some people are more responsible for their actions than others. That's the point (yours anyway), no one is trying to dodge it.
You think the US is more responsible for its actions than other nations/groups/people are, apparently.
For this war we are. We were reckless, immoral, and dishonest.
See the second sentence is the problem. That has no bearing on this discussion. If we were careful, moral, and honest, would we have less responsibility for the death there?
If no, why mention it at all? It certainly makes it appear as if, to you, the level of responsibility it somehow dependent upon justice. The two are two completely separate concepts.
If yes, you're being astonishingly clear that you're holding a strange double standard: people are responsible for what they do regardless of how careful, moral, and honest they are. Who would think otherwise, and why?
But it really doesn't matter, you've already admitted to having a double standard anyway, so it's no use having this discussion with you. We're not able to agree on terms. But it's refreshing that you admitted to it.
I have the same problem.
No, I don't think you understood what I was saying. But it's very interesting that you think people are less responsible for their actions if they're careful, moral, and honest (or maybe just if you agree with what they're doing?).
That's very odd, and while it's certainly understandable, it's not very logical. Fascinating that you're so open about different standards. I kinda took it as a article of faith that most people at least aspire to maintain consistency.
I think in their body count they choose to add in all the dead caused by the Islomo-extremists that continue to kill people. The rationale of course being that if Bush hadnt gone to war they wouldnt be killing Iraqis. And OK...you can even cede that point, but then you would HAVE to go to door number two which says yes...but if Bush hadnt gone to war with Iraq Saddam Hussein would still be in power and his own personal record of genocide is rather impressive as well. Better to just stick with the talking points about the eeeeevil George Bush killing Iraqis and be done with it.
How so? Our Corporations are profiting by drilling, processing, transporting, refining, and retailing the Iraqi OIL. The Iraqis are getting paid as guilt money so it doesn't look like we are stealing their OIL.
It has every bearing. Had we not been reckless, we would have put people in the position we. Responsible people are thoughtful and cautious. Had we been moral, we would not have invaded on a pretext, been the aggressor, and thus brought war and harm to a people. And if we had leaders who were honest, we wouldn't have present the deceptions that feed the fever here at hope, gathering support for a war without real justification. Our leaders doing these things makes them responsible. If we were cautious, moral, and honest, we wouldn't have invaded in the first place.
We and we alone brought he war there. We destabilize. We ignored what was certain to happen. They were plenty if warnings, but we chose war. I'm sorry, but we are responsible for the results of our actions.
What your saying has nothing to do with my argument. I made such claim. You're trying to dance around the argument made.
The act is what makes them responsible.
They brought needless war. Being reckless adds to responsibility.
We have a different standard for an accident where everyone was doing what hey should than we do for those who were reckless.
This is not a double standard, but proper judgement.
We hold those who act immorally to greater disdain than those who behave morally, as we o the honest over the dishonest. Again, proper judgement. The act, reckless, immoral, and dishonest, is what makes us responsible.
A lot fewer people would have died, had we not invaded Germany during The Second World War, too. Was FDR a war criminal? Oh...wait...he was a Libbo...of course he wasn't.