Mr. Dibble is a fatuous asshole. Today, anyway.

The BBQ Pit
61

[QUOTE=Princhester]
Missed the edit window. Add to my above post:

Plus “70% worthy” is extremely generous. Without looking at actual statistics I would assume that all other active military effort by the US since WWII pales into insignificance compared to Vietnam and Iraq II on any reaonable measure, and both of those conflicts were/are monumental fuckups where the worthiness of the US position is best described as somewhere between highly dubious and virtually non-existent.
[/QUOTE]

The military is protecting the country even when they are not actually fighting in a war, so you might have to revise your calculations. And, even now, most of the people in the military are not in Iraq.

Now, I’d be surprised if anyone went into the army or the marines in the last 2-4 years without thinking there’d be a good chance he or she would end up in Iraq, but there are plenty of people who were against the invasion, but who think we need to still be there. That would include the top 3 contenders for the Democratic Presidential nomination, btw.

So, even if you revise your numbers downward as appropriate, it’s faulty logic to equate being in the military with agreeing to any given policy of the US government-- either before a person joins or after.

62

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Or, there art parts of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s findings that support my position, but I understand that a debate does not go to He With The Most cites.
[/quote]

What does this mean? You have no cites so you’d rather believe a debate is going to be won by calling people names?

So you’ll be responding to my post #52 any second now, then?

I see. So suggesting that Saddam supported AQ in the context of suggesting the war was justified is not derailing the thread, but calling you on it is. Gotcha. How convenient for you.

63

[QUOTE=John Mace]
So, even if you revise your numbers downward as appropriate, it’s faulty logic to equate being in the military with agreeing to any given policy of the US government-- either before a person joins or after.
[/QUOTE]

And when it’s my logic, please call me on it.

My logic is that it is proper to equate joining the military with acquiescing in a very good chance that you will get called upon to do immoral things.

64

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Pink Pussy,

You sadly mistake me for someone who holds your opinion in high regard. Or anything other than scripted and laughable. Especially after that last time we met and you threw down some mighty gauntlet which I picked up slapped you with and off you went. And do you really think that because you have nothing better to do with your time than bugger your Indian houseboy and search for cites that you post over and over and over again, that they actually prove anything. Here’s a revelation you soon-to-be-if-not-already-drunk shithead, they don’t, other than there are some people who agree with you. Pretty amazing, actually, but not much in the way of proving your case.

My default is to simply avoid the shitheadiest of posters—congratulation you’re in the top ten or so—so thanks for getting my attention so I could piss on your shitty Spanish self with your stupid but oh-so-tough-looking goatee. Another newsflash, people already know you’re a pussy you didn’t have to make your face look more like one.
[/QUOTE]

WTF? Keep the mindless rants up your kazoo – or shout them at the mirror, you fuckin’ murderous asswipe. Either up the meds or counter-address the cites contained in my post. Including your own Senate’s conclusion.

Fucking brainless inbred motherfucker.

Here, try to educate yourself. Though I doubt that’s possible:

Official Cheney biographer thoroughly discredited by Senate Intelligence Committee on Iraq connection to 9-11 attacks

Bush plays al Qaida card to bolster support for Iraq policy

– my bolding.

On Fox News Sunday, Hume falsely asserted that Al Qaeda in Iraq “was there before we got there”

Colin Powell on Iraq

Saddam had no links to al-Qaeda

– bolding mine.

Hussein’s Prewar Ties To Al-Qaeda Discounted Pentagon Report Says Contacts Were Limited

Just read the whole thing. Tired of spoon-feeding such a twat.

Endless more where those came from, you two-faced lying fuck.

PS-And if you’re suggesting something about a physical confrontation (?), I’ll remind that is not only outside the rules of this forum but rather desperate, childish and proof that you have no legitimate arguments left.. Even so – you’re welcomed to come visit me F2F anytima, details via e-mail. There are fates much worse than death – such as yours.

65

[QUOTE=Princhester]
What does this mean? You have no cites so you’d rather believe a debate is going to be won by calling people names?
[/QUOTE]

If you would look at my conduct in this thread you will see that I was having a respctful debate with MrDibble, who I couldn’t disagree with more. No vitriol. No heat. No name calling. Even when another poster came in to challenge me, I handled it the same. As I have with you. I suggest you read carefully and see what instigated what before you start flapping your gums. I’m happy to leave Pink Pussy alone, but when he stands up and asks me so pointedly to bitch slap him, I’m inclined to oblige. And the cite issue is not that there are no cites supporting my position, (you certainly can’t beleive that, can you?) but that they would prove squat. In the end it comes down to which cites one is inclined to believe and how the totality of information is filtered by our own histories and prejudices. We all have them. Even, I dare say, you. So, I am not very interested in cite wars except when trying to prove or disprove something that is purely factual. The moral assessment we’re making does not fall into that. Which is why I am willing to stipulate moral failing on the part of Bush & Co. If this were the first time this discussion were had, I would be much more interested in seeing what was out there. As it is, the cites are old news. Pink Pussy must have them programmed into certain keys so he can regurgitate them with the same ease he spews forth drunken stupidity. Or, at times, sober stupdity.

[QUOTE=Princhester]
So you’ll be responding to my post #52 any second now, then?
[/QUOTE]

Well, if were addressed to me, I would have. There are many private discussions that go on between posters within a thread and I try not to insinuate myself into every one of them. But here you go:

I don’t think that pre-2002 the image of the military is what you view it as. The stink of Vietnam was no longer on the uniform and the last substantial engagement was Quwait. In that war I think that the general view is that the U.S. military acquitted themselves well and acted quite honorably. I see no reason why someone joining the U.S. military pre-2002, and especially post-9/11 shouldn’t be viewed as someone who was looking to honorably serve their country and better themselves through acquiring skills and education. While there were smaller operations over the timeframe you mention that could be construed as paiinting the military as immoral, I’d say that for a 20 year-old kid that the impression he had was formed by more recent events.

[QUOTE=Princhester]
I see. So suggesting that Saddam supported AQ in the context of suggesting the war was justified is not derailing the thread, but calling you on it is. Gotcha. How convenient for you.
[/QUOTE]

I was responding to a question posed to me. I tried to do so with minor effor as to not to distract from the discussion I was having that I was actually interested in.

66

[QUOTE=magellan01]
And the cite issue is not that there are no cites supporting my position…
[/quote]

You’re bluffing.

Let’s just stop right there. Who said anything about image?

67

[QUOTE=RedFury]
WTF? Keep the mindless rants up your kazoo – or shout them at the mirror, you fuckin’ murderous asswipe. Either up the meds or counter-address the cites contained in my post. Including your own Senate’s conclusion.

Fucking brainless inbred motherfucker.

Here, try to educate yourself. Though I doubt that’s possible:

Official Cheney biographer thoroughly discredited by Senate Intelligence Committee on Iraq connection to 9-11 attacks

Bush plays al Qaida card to bolster support for Iraq policy

– my bolding.

On Fox News Sunday, Hume falsely asserted that Al Qaeda in Iraq “was there before we got there”
Colin Powell on Iraq
Saddam had no links to al-Qaeda

– bolding mine.

Hussein’s Prewar Ties To Al-Qaeda Discounted Pentagon Report Says Contacts Were Limited

Just read the whole thing. Tired of spoon-feeding such a twat.

Endless more where those came from, you two-faced lying fuck.
[/QUOTE]

Well, if you can point to where I’ve lied, this might mean something. Actually, even though you can’t it means something. It means you’re half way into the scotch and spewing your usual crazed rantings. Helter Skelter, Bubb, Helter Skelter. Question: are you frothing at the mouth, too. That’s what I’m picturing and I’d like to know if it’s accurate. It’s a good laugh nonetheless. Hehehehehe.

[QUOTE=RedFury]
PS-And if you’re suggesting something about a physical confrontation (?), I’ll remind that is not only outside the rules of this forum but rather desperate, childish and proof that you have no legitimate arguments left.. Even so – you’re welcomed to come visit me F2F anytima, details via e-mail. There are fates much worse than death – such as yours.
[/QUOTE]

Is this your proof that you are drunk? You huff that I threatened your pussy self physically—which I clearly have not—but then you level a threat my way. Brilliant, just brilliant, you moron. And didn’t one of these tough-guy-over-the-internet threats (shiver-me-timbers) of yours with another poster already reveal you to be the pussy you are, complete with the pussy hair around your lips?

What a complete schmuck. No if you want to do some good, go get my shovel back from another person who knew you were just an imitation of a man.

Now as much as I enjoy bitchslapping you, Pink Pussy, it’s a little too easy. So, I’m goint to leave you to your frothing and your task. But I’ll make you a deal. I’ll switch to your position if you can provide me with 10,000 independent cites that are in agreement with each other. Now, run along.

Go ahead, git… What’s that? Fine, take the bottle…now git.

68

[QUOTE=Princhester]
You’re bluffing.
[/QUOTE]

Whatever you say. I’ve already stated what interests me and what doesn’t.

[QUOTE=Princhester]
YLet’s just stop right there. Who said anything about image?
[/QUOTE]

You didn’t use those words, but you did. Back in the post you requested I read. I’m not trying to put words into your mouth, but isn’t the point of taking into account (correctly, I’d say) the past the impresion we are left with, i.e., the image we are left with? Your statement: "Look back at the history of US usage of military force over the last 30-40 years. " is making the point that people should take that into account. Is itnot? And if they do, they should have realized that there was an immoral history that they should assume is still part of the military. I don’t disagree with your thinking, I only add that I think the more recent events occupied a more dominant position in the minds of 20 year-olds pre-2002. And that would mean that these kids viewed the military as an honorable endeavour.

69

What a waste.

It would be much better to educate these men and women.

70

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Is this your proof that you are drunk? You huff that I threatened your pussy self physically—which I clearly have not—but then you level a threat my way. Brilliant, just brilliant, you moron. And didn’t one of these tough-guy-over-the-internet threats (shiver-me-timbers) of yours with another poster already reveal you to be the pussy you are, complete with the pussy hair around your lips?

What a complete schmuck. No if you want to do some good, go get my shovel back from another person who knew you were just an imitation of a man.

Now as much as I enjoy bitchslapping you, Pink Pussy, it’s a little too easy. So, I’m goint to leave you to your frothing and your task. But I’ll make you a deal. I’ll switch to your position if you can provide me with 10,000 independent cites that are in agreement with each other. Now, run along.

Go ahead, git… What’s that? Fine, take the bottle…now git.
[/QUOTE]

Speaking of being liquored-up, that’s the only way I can “understand” how you wrote that unintelligible screed of yours – which, of course, has zilch to do with my fully researched and cited post. Or would that be crack? Moonshine? Some new shit past my years? Never mind. If it turns you into what you show here – a bitter, contentious, lying fuck. For starters.-- I want no part of it…whatever “it” might be.

Not up on vices in my old age.

No use for an 'net bitch either. I like my bitches to show a bit of intelligence as well which is clearly beyond you. So go rot where you don’t stink-up the place much. Not like I really give a shit though.

TTFN.

71

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Whatever you say. I’ve already stated what interests me and what doesn’t.
[/quote]

Alleged Saddam/AQ connections interest you enough to allege them, but your interest wanes at the point you are called upon to justify your allegations.

Yes to the first part, but your final sentence misses the point. It is a question of history being a predictor of the future, not of being associated with something with a dubious history.

I’ll accept that those who join the military may be:

  • too stupid to realise that history tends to be a predictor of the future.

  • unforgiveably ignorant of the last 40 years of history of the activities of the organisation they are about to irrevocably commit themselves to

  • knowledgeable of the last 40 years etc but uncaring of what that means their enlistment might entail

Which do you think the OP would accept?

72

Oh, and BTW, blatant proven LIE:

Enjoy your next hit of whatever it is you’re hitting.

73

[QUOTE=Princhester]
Alleged Saddam/AQ connections interest you enough to allege them, but your interest wanes at the point you are called upon to justify your allegations.
[/QUOTE]

Asked and answered.

[QUOTE=Princhester]
Yes to the first part, but your final sentence misses the point. It is a question of history being a predictor of the future, not of being associated with something with a dubious history.

I’ll accept that those who join the military may be:

  • too stupid to realise that history tends to be a predictor of the future.

  • unforgiveably ignorant of the last 40 years of history of the activities of the organisation they are about to irrevocably commit themselves to

  • knowledgeable of the last 40 years etc but uncaring of what that means their enlistment might entail

Which do you think the OP would accept?
[/QUOTE]

I think you go to far here, in several regards. As far as history being a predictor, the miltary has been a fact of life for thousands of years. Your position presupposes that it has always acted immorally and that joining up with it has always been the result of stupid people not being able see that that history would necessarily, or likely, lead to further immoral behavior. Would you grant that the militaryhas ever acted honorably? Or more to the point, was perceived as acting honorably?

Would you not say that during the 90s, due in large part to Bush 41’s war, that the military had repaired much of the negative opinion people had of it due to Vietnam and Reagan’s exploits in south America? And that the kids that were 20 years old in 2002 would have been much more swayed by the latest reputation of the military rather than one that may have been prevalent before they were 10 years old?

I’m not sure of your ultimate position here. Are you of the opinion that joining the military, at least since 2002, is necessarily immoral? If so, when was the last time, if it all, that joining the military was not immoral. And beyond that, was it ever not just moral, but honorable?

74

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
You seem to have missed a key element of my post. As far as I can tell, every combat grunt in Iraq has to have either enlisted ro re-enlisted subsequent to March, 2003, so we should no longer have anyone over there who signed up to “defend our country” (or “to pay for college”) who did not know at the time they signed their papers that they were going to go to either Iraq of Afghanistan.

I am open to correction on that point.

In 2002, we had an entire military filled with people who had signed up to defend the countru or for whatever reason. They could not have known that the fools in Washington were going to deliberately lie their way into a wasteful and immoral war in March 2003. However, the terms of enlistment for those personnel, even the ones who have been backstabbed by the current Stop Loss program, should have, by now, had at least one opportunity to look at the world news and decide “that is not defending my country” and decline to sign the papers.
[/QUOTE]

No, I didn’t miss the point. The fact is a lot of peoplr that I personally enlisted did sign up for reasons other than going into combat. You can still sign up to defend the country and be sent to Iraq. A lot of people don’t get deployed. Its hard to imagine, I’m sure, but there are some folks that don’t get sent to Iraq. You have a better chance of being sent there in the reserves or national guard in my opinion. Yeah, thats fucked up, but I’ve seen guys I put in that haven’t left the states and nat’l guard units on the 3rd and 4th rotation. Very few people actually signed up and asked for infantry jobs though. And yes, just before I left recruiting the numbers dwindled drastically.

75

BTW, Sorry if that was blunt and quickly written, Tomndeb, I was at home getting readyfor work when I typed it and when I looked at the clock I was running late! I gotta stop going on line in the morning. I only made it here (to work) on time by the hair of my chinny chin chin.

76

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Asked and answered.
[/quote]

What I asked you for was a cite. You haven’t answered jack shit. Saying “I’m not going to answer” is not an answer, except maybe in the opinion of a wilfully ignorant prat.

I’m just going to stop bothering with you if you keep strawman-ing. Go back and read my posts and then ask yourself why the hell you are suggesting that my position is the military “always acted immorally” or see any need to ask if it has ever acted honourably.

See my previous post which sets out the options I will countenance. You seem quite nicely to be reinforcing my point. You correctly point out that if one were so stupid or unforgiveably ignorant as to join up on the basis of an extremely limited consideration of what may be involved (you seem to suggest that the last 10 years or so is sufficient, for fuck’s sake!) one might do so and actually be able kid yourself that what you were doing was unlikely to involve doing immoral things.

In my opinion, if you join up and then find yourself in some disastrous conflict doing immoral or stupid things, you are in no position to cry off that you didn’t know or couldn’t have known what you were likely to end up doing.

77

[QUOTE=bannerrefugee]
What a waste.

It would be much better to educate these men and women.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, they’re all cavemen. :rolleyes:
What the hell are you talking about?

78

[QUOTE=Princhester]
In my opinion, if you join up and then find yourself in some disastrous conflict doing immoral or stupid things, you are in no position to cry off that you didn’t know or couldn’t have known what you were likely to end up doing.
[/QUOTE]

It all comes down to the end of that sentence, doesn’t it? the word “likely”. There is the crux of where we disagree. I don’t think that it was ever the case that joing the U.S. military* likely* resulted in one being asked to act immorally. Even using the 30% metric you offered earleir, I think that it is grossly inflated. In fact, I think it is grossly inflated even if you restrict your sample to those soldiers who are sent into battle. I doubt either of us will be able to prove our case in this regard. I would think that even if you accepted at face value every report of immoral behavior on behalf of our soldiers in Iraq that the number would be much smaller.

What number of U.S. soldiers in Iraq would you say have committed actual immoral acts while there? Excluding, for the purpose of this question, considering them being in Iraq or in the military immoral in and of itself? I think this question will help us put a sharper point on our discussion.

79

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
You seem to have missed a key element of my post. As far as I can tell, every combat grunt in Iraq has to have either enlisted ro re-enlisted subsequent to March, 2003, so we should no longer have anyone over there who signed up to “defend our country” (or “to pay for college”) who did not know at the time they signed their papers that they were going to go to either Iraq of Afghanistan.

I am open to correction on that point.

In 2002, we had an entire military filled with people who had signed up to defend the countru or for whatever reason. They could not have known that the fools in Washington were going to deliberately lie their way into a wasteful and immoral war in March 2003. However, the terms of enlistment for those personnel, even the ones who have been backstabbed by the current Stop Loss program, should have, by now, had at least one opportunity to look at the world news and decide “that is not defending my country” and decline to sign the papers.
[/QUOTE]

Well, I personally know a lot of Reservists and Guardsmen who signed up a long time before 2002 who were called back to serve in Iraq. One is around my age, and is a Lt. Col. I think he joined up around the end of 'Nam. Yes, he has a “cushy office job”, but that isn’t all that safe in Iraq.

I am not sure if many Active military have been semi-“forced” into staying beyond their terms from 2002 into 2007, this wiki article is not clear.

I’d like to find out more on that myself.

This artilce is of course biased, but interesting none the less.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/6862691/the_return_of_the_draft/

"*…is one of 40,000 troops in Iraq who have been informed that their enlistment has been extended until December 24th, 2031. “I’ve served five months past my one-year obligation,” says Qualls, the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit challenging the military with breach of contract. “It’s time to let me go back to my life. It’s a question of fairness, and not only for myself. This is for the thousands of other people that are involuntarily extended in Iraq. Let us go home.”

The Army insists that most “stop-lossed” soldiers will be held on the front lines for no longer than eighteen months. But Jules Lobel, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights who is representing eight National Guardsmen in a lawsuit challenging the extensions, says the 2031 date is being used to strong-arm volunteers into re-enlisting. According to Lobel, the military is telling soldiers, “We’re giving you a chance to voluntarily re-enlist – and if you don’t do it, we’ll screw you. And the first way we’ll screw you is to put you in until 2031.”*

80

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Mr. Dibble,

Okay, that was helpful. It helps me understand better where you draw the line and why. But here’s what’s troubling: on some of the questions I asked I your answers beg the question. You state that the soldiers sent to Iraq are immoral because 1) it’s an occupation and 2) an immoral one. Leaving aside number 1, are all occupations immoral?
[/QUOTE]

Nope.

[QUOTE=magellan01]

The obvious example that would suggest not was the U.S. occupation of Germany.

[/QUOTE]

What about the Soviet occupation of Germany?

[QUOTE=magellan01]

So, if not all occupations are immoral, what makes this particular one immoral?

[/QUOTE]

Do you even have to ask?

[QUOTE=magellan01]

Is it immoral in concept?
[/QUOTE]

Hell yes.

[QUOTE=magellan01]

Or is it immoral because of the U.S.'s actual conduct there?

[/QUOTE]

Let’s say that hasn’t helped, but it’s not the primary reason.

[QUOTE=magellan01]

A few specifics:
Is that oath in particular the only oath that may save a soldier from a badge of immorality?
[/QUOTE]

I don’t know - I tend to deal with exceptions as they are brought up. So far, yes.

[QUOTE=magellan01]

How about chaplains?
[/QUOTE]

Hell, no…
…umm, have you ever seen my contributions to religious threads? I’m with Voltaire on priests and princes.

[QUOTE=magellan01]

In your estimation are there any other soldiers who are excusable?

[/QUOTE]

Not off the top of my head, no.

[QUOTE=magellan01]

So, a soldier can go to Iraq and do something “great” by helping Iraqis? Is he still immoral?

[/QUOTE]

In the sum of things? It depends. **His being in Iraq is in and of itself one continuing immoral action. That’s kind of my main point. **What he does there also has its own moral weight. And I didn’t say he’d be doing something “great” as in “big good”, I meant “yeah, that’s great”, as in “yeah, that’s nice”

[QUOTE=magellan01]

How about if the engineers are rebuilding schools and infrastructure?
[/QUOTE]

You mean the shit their side blew up in the first place? Morally neutral.
[QUOTE=magellan01]

How about if the cooks are feeding people whose homes have been destroyed, by either U.S. forces or Al Qaeda?

[/QUOTE]

Again, morally neutral. Not that that’s what happens in Iraq, AFAICT. Army cooks feed the army, a moral bad as it helps them occupy.
[QUOTE=magellan01]

By bad guy I meant someone who would blow up innocent women and children.

[/QUOTE]

Call the cops.
[QUOTE=magellan01]

Now you’re being disengenuous. You know full well that we could construct a situation where the known target would have been a market. You’ve argued in good faith up to now, please don’t start playing games.

[/QUOTE]

No games. I’m saying if you know that he’s blowing up a market, call the cops. the Iraqi cops. That’s my first choice - cops before soldiers. Because cops prevent crimes, soldiers just kill people.
[QUOTE=magellan01]

Let’s make it a two-parter. In one scenario he knows the guy was heading for the school. In the other that information was not confirmed until after the fact. Either way, stopping a guy in Iraq with a truck load of explosives—unless you knew for certain that he was going to use them on U.S. soldiers—is a good thing, no?
[/QUOTE]

Saving children is a good thing, yes. Scenario one earns a lot of moral positive weight. Scenario two is morally neutral to me.
[QUOTE=magellan01]

Just to clarify, the exception in that sentence reflects your position, not mine.

[/QUOTE]

My default assumption would be “freedom fighter” rather than “sectarian terrorist”, yes.

[QUOTE=magellan01]

You keep saying that as if it’s a given—morally. But you haven’t proven that to be the case yet.
[/QUOTE]

It’s not something I can prove to you. You either have my moral sensibilities or you don’t. I can argue whether something is consistent with my given moral stance or not, that’s where logic comes into it. But the baseline axioms of my moral stance are just that - axiomatic.

One of those axioms is - the initial aggressor in a conflict is the bad one. Yes, I leave room for “clear and present danger”, but demand a close accounting after the fact. So, for instance, Six Day War gets a pass, Iraq occupation, not so much.

[QUOTE=magellan01]

And even if you do, you’re assuming that what may be an immoral decision made by higher ups is binding on people on down the line who did not and do not have all the information the President has, which, I might add, is why you may be able to label him so fairly.
[/QUOTE]

Which is why I am willing to give a boots-on-ground soldier in 2003 a pass, morally. Now, 4 years later? Not a damn! Be complicit with evil, suffer the taint.

[QUOTE=magellan01]

Again, if you think that ALL occupations are immoral, show why.
[/QUOTE]

Never said that
[QUOTE=magellan01]

If it is just this one in particular, show why.
[/QUOTE]

Are you fucking serious? No, I mean it, are you completely, absolutely, fucking serious? Have you read these boards the last 4 years? Have you watched the news, read a paper, stuck your head anywhere outside your own ass?

I don’t have to prove shit, it’s already been done countless times. Take it as read.

[QUOTE=magellan01]

Afterwards, build a case why people who were following orders and did not and do not have all the information are necessarily actiing immorally.
[/QUOTE]

They have sufficient information necessary to make an informed choice now.

[QUOTE=magellan01]

You haven’t done any of these three things yet and they are central to your thesis. “They’re acting immoral because the war is immoral” doesn’t come close.
[/QUOTE]

Works for me.

[QUOTE=magellan01]

Time to drop the mantra and step up to the plate, MrDibble.

[/QUOTE]

If you think the Iraq war is morally justified, you have bigger problems than whether I can convince you of anything.

[QUOTE=magellan01]

Well, perhaps you should attempt to do that. “They’re acting immoral because the war is immoral” is an opinion based on an opinion AND is begging the question.
[/QUOTE]

Hello? All morality is subjective, as far as I’m concerned. It is an opinion. And no, it’s not begging the question. The case for the immorality of the war has already been made successfully. Your willful denial isn’t my problem.

[QUOTE=magellan01]

Surely, if you are going to label someone as immoral you should be able to point to specific actions they’ve taken that so qualify them?
[/QUOTE]

They invaded a fucking country that was no threat to them at all. If that isn’t immoral, just what the hell do you think is?

On second thoughts, don’t answer that. I don’t really want to know. Possible answers scare me.

[QUOTE=magellan01]

This broad-brushing from you is not only fallacious, but immoral in itself.
[/QUOTE]

What broad-brushing? I’ve been very specific in what I’m addressing - the baseline morality of a soldier partaking in the Iraq occupation. I’ve not claimed that this makes individual soldiers unmitigated evil. I’ve only stated that they are not starting from a morally neutral or positive point. They have to, in fact, behave like angels if they want to come out of it smelling of roses. And no, not the angels that wasted Sodom and Gomorrah, either. The kind that saved that donkey.

[QUOTE=John Mace]
No, he’s saying he would call the cops rather the American soldiers. If those are two valid choices, there’s nothing wrong with that. If he says he’d never call the American soldiers, even if he couldn’t get in touch with the Iraqi police, or if there simply weren’t any in the area, that would be a different matter.
[/QUOTE]

That’s right. Calling the American forces would be my absolute last resort - and I’d never kill the person myself, even to save lives. Sorry, but that’s how I roll.