I was wrong.
(See how easy that was, BI?)
‘BI’ = New Iskander.
Not as used to the laptop keyboard as the full fized one.
If so, I thought I gave you an answer long time ago; I was trying to be polite, that’s why I reminded you about words of Burke and Einstein.
The answer is NO. There is nothing more despicable then not acting in the face of evil.
Princhester: By the way, that was sorta tacky of me. In my zeal to beat our resident Fox News representative with a clue stick, I became somewhat overzealous.
I didn’t mean to put words into your mouth, but I thought I had a pretty decent handle on what you were getting at. My apologies for not properly qualifying that fact.
Oh, that? No, thank you. I have too much of that already. You want some?
Yes! We have a direct answer, sorta. Play stay on the line here NI, it’s hard to reel you back in.
Okay, since there is no Evil-O-Meter, how do we tell what’s evil, and what’s good?
Well, I’m glad you asked that. Seemss like, to me, the only objective way of qualifying that fact is to talk about harm done to another human being, yes? Are we together here?
So, if event X is Evil and we initiate event Y which is Good but kills ten times as many people and leaves one hundred times as many people miserable… is that still Good?
Can we, perhaps, initiate event Z which results in less human death and misery than options X or Y?
It’d be nice.
As FinnAgain shows, and everybody else here, you really are have none, I take back even the sympathy I offered for your ESL troubles.
How do you reconcile your Burke and Einstein quotes with the ones I posted?
Except that’s not what I asked. But do I take it that you consider there is no price that would be higher than the price of doing nothing about Saddam?
Yes or no?
Be aware that whatever answer you give I am going to take and run with, so think carefully and mean what you say.
Nazis only killed 6,000,000 Jews; why did we have to kill 10,000,000 German people to put an end to Nazis?
Yes, nice. That is a question of strategy. We are talking about a Principle. Perhaps better strategy was possible. Was Washington using the best possible strategy in Independence war? Was Lincoln using the best possible strategy in Civil war? Who was better strategist: Patton, Bradley or Eisenhower?
GODDAMN!
Going for hyperbole like a fuzzy little bunny lickity split, eh?
First, Sadaam was not “a Hitler.”
Second, you claims are dishonest. Eight million German soldiers were killed, two million civilians. And while that isn’t anything to scoff at, your claims of “10,000,000” are either deliberately obfuscatory, or just plain stupid. Maybe, even, a little from column A, a little from column B.
Third, sometimes yes, you have to fight. I’m not claiming any form of radical pacificism. Merely a system of pragmatics.
Fourth, virtually my entire extended family was butchered by the Nazis, so I’d be real careful, were I you, about tossing around bullshit hyperbole in order to make your intellectualy bankrupt point.
Yes you brain-stem functioning Fox News drone. We’re talking Principle, as in, killing and suffering is to be avoided whenever possible. As in, making things worse than they were when we started because we’re acting like idealogues (look in the mirror schnookums) is wrong. As in, your idiotic idealogue masturbation has consequences for other people. Schmuck.
So full of the milk of human kindness…
Ya don’t say? Ya think that when we’re playing with other people’s lives, we’ve got, I dunno… a responsibility to find those better strategies before the [del]death and maiming and suffering and chaos[/del] shock and awe begin?
What the fuck are you talking about drone boy?
I know it’s real hard for you to understand, but Sadaam was not Hitler, was not the British Empire, he wasn’t even Darth Vader. Your diversionary historical ‘parallels’ serve no purpose other than you dodging the question.
Hey, pacificism would probably be pretty neat! Palm trees, girls wearing next to nothing… maybe I am advocating radical pacificism.
If the war was about the holocaust you may have a point. It wasn’t so you don’t.
Erm. Dunno. Typhoons, tsunamis, volcanoes . . . can we go with just, say, Tahitiism? Maybe Samoaism?
Hrmmmm…
I think we can finally find agreement in this thread. I, FinnAgain, am now a radicial Tahitianist. Mai Tais for all!
No hyperbole, just a demonstration that simple arithmetics don’t suffice here.
That’s exactly what I always think when I hear yelps about “dead Iraqis” without distinction: “either deliberately obfuscatory, or just plain stupid”.
First, I had honestly no idea, so don’t assume that I used this example to hurt you. Second, I’d like to point out that some people were deliberately trying to hurt me in full knowledge of my background (like that snake t&d), for which I forgive them, so I’d be less sensitive, were I you.
I told you before, got a better plan, run for the office, my vote is yours.
Poor form NI. “Simple” arithmatics might not suffice, but that’s no reason to pretend that the situation with Sadaam was as black and white as WWII. If not stopped, the Axis powers would’ve ruled the world, and I never would’ve been born. This message board would be in German.
It’s neither. We’ve killed a great many civilians. If you require I will track down the pictures of Falujah civilians, old men among them, killed in their beds. Probably in their sleep.
I didn’t assume that, just wanted to point out that going for Hitler metaphors is jumping the shark in a profoundly vulgar thing. I don’t doubt that Iraq was a brutal dictatorship, or that Sadaam needed to be dealt with, but he was not a Nazi. Things were not quite so black and white. Sadaam was contained, Hitler would have conquered the world and slaughtered all the Jews, and probably the Gypsies, gays, etc…
Nonsequitor.
[ul]
[li]We’re not a fascist state. Only in a totalitarian state do we have to deal with one leader or another in absolute terms. We’re a representative democracy, a republic. And if my government is commiting acts in my name, I’m certainly entitled to demand redressal of grievances.[/li][li]But as long as you’re asking, yes, I’ve already told you part of my plan. Get the UN involved. Allow the international community to bid on reconstruction and not just our cronies.[/li][li]Further, I’d have much rather seen Bush revoke the executive order on assasination and spend, say, a tenth of what we have now on the war to bribe officials and take Sadaam out with a bullet or a missle, his children too if necessary… and have the UN ready to stabalize the state as soon as Sadaam’s corpse was cool.[/li][/ul]
Sorry to interrupt here, but if I’m reading the chart correctly, the 8.1 million figure is a combination of the 3.5 million forces killed or missing and the 4.6 million who were merely wounded. That means the number of dead Germans is significantly lower than 10 million, at just 5.5 million, of which 2 million were citizens. Not to mention the fact that comparing the number of German dead to the number of Jewish dead is entirely irrelevant, seeing as how the Nazis murdered another 6 - 16 million civilians (depending on your sources) of various other nationalities in the death camps, not to mention all the allied soldiers who lost their lives fighting the Germans trying to liberate Europe. The numbers, by an honest comparison, are astronomically far apart; more like 22 million to 2 million.
Carry on.
Thank you Shayna, I was mistaken.