If it were my kid, it wouldn't matter...I'd dedicate my life to getting revenge. Which brings us back to the "spreading hatred" issue.
What if it was your kid, one of many, to suffer for the loss of his father at the hands of Saddam, Zarqawi, Bin Laden or some other Ayatollah? Of course, particularly in Iraq, that's just in theory as nothing really bad was going on there before the allied troops went in and starting killing kids while giving candies to them (how unfortunate that 2 US soldiers died while giving candies to those Iraqi kids, 24 of which died and many wounded and forever scarred, what hit them? I suppose a US missile or a US kamikaze brainwashed soldier, right?)
This was not the question, how you like to die, I am sure if these people had a choice, they would have preferred to die in their sleep. The question is who is more dead?
How is that different if their father is killed by American soldier, should they be happy and full of joy that their father had the privilege of getting killed by an American and a bullet made in good old USA?
Both dead, but also the question would be why are they dead. Why were they killed. That would be important to see the bigger picture and stop terror. If you do a lot of good, there will be bad as well. If the US takes many actions, there will be bad actions as well. Mistakes happen. Deadly mistakes that is. If you look at the reason why (which footages can bring enlightenment upon), that would be the key to preventing it in the future. Accident vs. Revenge.
Does that question make any sense at all? A silly question would get a silly answer, I advise against replying to that question if it's not rephrased. I'll ask a question that makes sense: What's worse from an ethical point of view: a) being intentionally killed (or killing intentionally) b) being killed by accident (or killing by accident) c) killing oneself (and taking many others out, whoever it may be, with a backpack nail bomb made by someone fleeing the country, just in case)
Further to the point, what to medications and drugs do? They can do you good, particularly in an area, but they are always bad for other areas of your body. Even food has that sort of effect, and that's an other reason why it's better to eat less than more than you need. In other words, as Sitetutor said, if you want to do some good to this ill world, you have to accept that whatever you do and however it may be good for the world or for some people, it's going to be bad for others, hopefully, if the choise is right, less bad than good...
They don't want to see the difference. Most rationale people know who is there to help, who is helping and who is there to kill innocent people without regard. It's these same people that want the terrorists to win so they can continue right on doing what saddam did to his people. They claim to care. And this is how they care. They are more concerned with the terrorists right to kill whoever they deem fit to die. Perfect reasoning and logic to me
Interesting. I would have thought a more logical question would be: Who is there to help, give humanitarian aid, build schools and make a better place for Iraqis? Of course the problem is, some may be able to differentiate between muslims and terrorists, but cannot differentiate between those whose mission is helping the people of Iraq and those whose mission is to kill the people of Iraq.
Now that we agree that it doesn't make a damn difference for men,women and children who get killed and they are dead anyway then let's look at excuses or as you call it why from both killing side. American We want to bring them freedom. we want to bring them western values. They people who fight us are terrorists. They use car bombs and hit civilian targets. Iraq people, terrorist,... They want to occupy us and steal our resources. we would like to live by our traditions and customs. Americans are occupying force, this is war for freedom. You have to use what is available, there is no sophisticated planes,ships or tanks here. If you go back in history, I am sure you can find the same type of reasoning between German forces in France and partisans during WWII, American forces in Vietnam and Viet Cong and every other war after that. What you believe and accept, depends on what side of equation you are but in the mean time, innocent people are still getting killed and they will be dead forever independent of who killed them and why.
Actually, no. I don't agree. I was answering disregarding that factor. It comes down to believe however, which then needs to be looked at whether someone believes in something and what they believe in. That will determine how the masses will view things. That in return will determine the future of the next generations and how the world will be able to live. Yes, if you are atheist and only look at your own life .... I might agree, but if you want to please God and have a meaning behind your life, it does make a difference. If you believe that your religion calls you to blow someone up and dying that way is glorious, than that is the problem and the issue that needs to be dealt with to bring peace amongst all nations.
It's called COLLATERAL DAMAGE! And those dead civilians don't matter, son! Kids in Iraq have such a bright furture now...thanks to depleted uranium!
You see, I don't believe the masses of Iraqui's would feel that way, if they were not brainwashed. That is why I believe in Democracy so people can make up their own minds. I think it is about whether we care about Iraqui's or not. A lot of people don't care. It is easy to ignore that. I believe in freedom for all people. Oppression and tyrany should never be labelled as a culture. If you had a female family member living in a society like that, I'm sure your views would become different.
Our soldiers weep when they see an innocent civilian die, the terrorists rejoice.... That is the bottom line, and that is the difference. If you cannot tell the difference, than you are not human.
I don't think anyone participating in this discussion would disagree with that. But we fucked up! We didn't go into Iraq to free the Iraqi people. We went in there for reasons which turned out to be totally false. And now a lot of people are paying for it! And will be for many years to come.
We went into iraq to remove Saddam from power to keep him from killing more people whether it be by training terrorists, funding terrorists, having wmd or even componants that are stored to create them, as mentioned earlier a number of times, Saddam was given way to many chances to comply and he didn't!!! Rob, you need to go talk to some guys that have been over their fighting and ask them what they are seeing. (Don't just pick one guy, ask as many as you can find.) The ones I have talked with so far have said that the media really makes them look bad. They are sick of our media not just the al-jezera ??SP?? The ones I have spoken with tell me they are happy about what is happening there. Most of the people there are glad we are there.
So you don't believe Iraq's people feel that way, may I ask how do you know? Where you in Iraq and asked each person or you think so because your government told you and you believe in their extra ordinary record of telling the truth. The second part of is even more funny, even if they don't believe so it is because they are brain washed, now I understand the purpose of a bullet to the brain, it certainly cures the brainwashed people. If it is so important to bring democracy to Iraq, why it is not important to bring it to the rest of the world either in the past or at present time. Do I need to remind you of CIA active rule in fighting every democratic movement all over the world since world war II? How about government elected by people that were toppled by CIA sponsored military force and disappearing people in Chile, Argentine,.....? Why a government who is doing it's best to take away the women right over her own body at home, should care about women in Iraq and how they cover their body? Grow up, behind all the big words and nice talks, nations and people go to war for one reason, and that is profits.
Is it false that Saddam was not allowing UN inspections in the way he should have? Why behave like that if he had nothing to hide? Did UN endless and pointless discussions give Saddam enough time to hide them as he did with aeroplanes? Of course aeroplanes are much harder to disguise and/or hide. He could have evacuted civilians from nearby military installations, if he cared. Actually, because of liberals (apparently they are allowed in western democracies) that would make such a fuss of casualties, they were used as a major weapon just like the Vietcong (unplanned). HE USED HIS OWN PEOPLE'S LIVES TO STAY IN POWER! But he was found in a rat hole, a real hero for his people! The war was right and Mr. Bush waited too long for the French and the Germans and the Russians to make up their mind. maybe he didn't know enough of how much they had to lose from a US lead war. By the way, just to remind you, the French have lost control of 70% of the Iraqi oil, so after all, it's better in the hands of the allies, at least they are not violating any embargo as the french (and germans, and russians, and chinese, etc). I hate GW Bush!