StarDestroyer.Net BBS

MKSheppard wrote:Cancel that damn gun registration scheme, cut health care back by 25% and you'd have more than enough money to keep 500 pounders raining down into Trashcanistan...

It'd be better to reorganize the health care system, as it stands it seems to be pretty ineffective as it is now.

Edi wrote:And thereofre you shouldn't even try to help those who would need it?

A war on Iraq can certanly be justified, but a humanitarian reason is not really a good reason, since there are worse places on this earth than Iraq that would have to be invaded with this reason as the main motivator.

Helping the people of iraq is a part of the overall reason for war on Iraq.

But more likely, the most important reason tho, is to get Saddam removed from power and to lift the sanctions on Iraq and to get the oil flowing freely, by that we also make sure that he doesn't go the path of North Korea, not now, not ever.
Lastly comes the humanitarian reason.

They're there, but they're not exactly the main motivator for the people in charge, to say that they where is likely propaganda.

I know, HDS.

Edi

Edi wrote:I know, HDS.

It feels so good to know that I have edumacated you.

Most protestors are today motivated by (A) a craven hatred of President Bush the man, and by extension, all of his policies no matter how dangerous such opposition might be, (B) the desire that their dissenting voice is heard and heeded on any topic - again no matter the cost, and (C) an idealistic notion of geopolicy’s inner workings that defies reality.

As for Ted’s insistence that war will come with hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties? I doubt that quite highly given (A) the size, deployment, and temerity of Hussein’s fighting forces, (B) the high degree of accuracy for so many of the Coalition weapons in question, and (C) the limited areas in which “heavy” engagement will be taking place.

Not that it matters anyway. My father lived in Communist Romania for much of his early life, watching as family were smuggled out – over the threat of death – to Italy or Germany and ultimately, the United States of America. He still tells stories that boggle the mind. And compared to Iraq’s, his are rather less severe. He is today an active supporter of President Bush’s proposed liberation of Iraq.

Ted wrote:

Wicked Pilot wrote:

Ted wrote:People living in Iraq DO NOT WANT A WAR.

Ah yes, and what remote and uncharted region of your ass did you pull this from?

Look you asshole,

Such astute commentary.

...would you want a country that is infinately more powerful than you to come in, bomb the entire infastructure, cause 100,000's of civilian casualties,

Whoah! Which crystal ball are you looking into? The one I have must be broken.

... and to completely replace the government and replace it with what they have PUBLICALLY STATED will be a military dictatorship, and say that that would be welcomed?

My God, you mean just like the Marshall Plan, which plunged Western Europe into chaos and anarchy for 50 years?

No wonder the personell in the USAF are so ridiculed and made fun of, you actually DO live up to the jokes about you.

And you actually live DOWN to everything that is stated about you, so I guess it's even.

Enlightenment wrote:Addition: this board isn't a gathering of friends in polite company. It's a collection of many people who deeply dislike eachother. The tone of the discussions here should be expected to reflect this.

I'm sorry you feel this way. Most of these people here are people I like and support, some of whom I have differences of opinion with which usually (not always) is resolved fairly civilly. I don't "deeply dislike" anyone here-- shucks, not even you or Ted.

Enlightenment wrote:The number of Iraqis likely to get a visit from the sercret police in the next two weeks is very likely far smaller than the number of Iraqis killed by bad PGM hits and infrastructure destruction during the first two weeks of Gulf War III. From the perspective of an Iraqi civilian, the devil you do know (Saddam) is far better than the devil you don't (the percentage of US bombs that miss, plus however many people die due to loss of civil infrastructure).

But bear in mind the thousands (literally thousands, possibly up to 1.2 million in the article) that have died over years and years and years of Iraqi Republican Guard/Saddam Hussein rule. And the deaths that will continue to mount if we let the guy slide for years and years more.

Maybe this doesn't mean anything, but a general feeling among Holocaust survivors has been that they'd preferred that the Allies bomb the Camps. It was better than the ovens. This is a very extreme case, though, but as the article points out, a people living in tyranny may well prefer to roll the dice and face a destructive liberation that allow themselves to be continually ground down by a bloodthirsty paranoid.

Enlightenment wrote:Sorry, but this is an utterly tiny death rate when compared to the wholesale slaughters conducted by the likes of Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin. Saddam is--at most--killing thousands of people a year. He doesn't run production death camps killing hundreds of thousands monthly.

So that makes it okay, then.

Is "six million" the threshhold of concern? I can safely kill 5.9 million people before anyone cares?

Odd that this "logic" goes out the door when applied to Israel, but then we'd not want to apply double standards now, of course....

Having just read the entirety of this thread, I'm strongly tempted to HOS it, on general basis. Any reason I shouldn't?

Enligthenment wrote:I don't place much value on human life in general, regardless of race, religion or ethnic background. There's over six billion humans wondering around and by no means are all of us necessary.

It's funny, because I believe each and every one of us is unique, and precious in that way. And that human life must be protected above all else, even the people who, not being our family of close friends, do not mean much to us. After all, they also have family, and friends of their own.

Must be the hopeless humanist part of me.

Enlightenment is a person with knowledge, but no love in his heart for any human being, maybe not even himself. That's his basic problem; have you ever seen him say anything good about anyone or anything? Hmmmm, try to dig through your memory archives for an example. I know I can't think of one off-hand.

Enlightenment wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:Enlightenment doesn't seem to think much of the value of Muslim life.

There isn't a racial component here. I don't place much value on human life in general, regardless of race, religion or ethnic background. There's over six billion humans wondering around and by no means are all of us necessary.

Even 25,000 dead at the hands of Saddam's security aparatus over the course of 30 years is well below the number of people killed annually in road accidents in the western world. The losses, while tragic to the families of the victims are statistically insignificant in the broader scheme of things. It's just not possible to save everyone.

Saddam is responsible for 1.25 million deaths, and Iraq has a small fraction of the population of the western world. Germany has more people then there are Arabs

Sea Skimmer wrote:Saddam is responsible for 1.25 million deaths, and Iraq has a small fraction of the population of the western world. Germany has more people then there are Arabs

The USA and UN is responsible for just as many.

And who cares about the number of dead, nobody cared that Stalin killed 10's of millions.

The only reason why people cared about the 6 million by Hitler was that jews had a lot of money and pushed it into the faces of the politicos.

Ted wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:Saddam is responsible for 1.25 million deaths, and Iraq has a small fraction of the population of the western world. Germany has more people then there are Arabs

The USA and UN is responsible for just as many.

And who cares about the number of dead, nobody cared that Stalin killed 10's of millions.

That you did not care does not extend to all people not caring. Most just had no power to act.

Ted wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:Saddam is responsible for 1.25 million deaths, and Iraq has a small fraction of the population of the western world. Germany has more people then there are Arabs

The USA and UN is responsible for just as many.

He's talking in proportional therms. Are you claiming that the U.S is the sole responsible for 1/8 of the Western world population, which amounts to about 100 million dead?

And who cares about the number of dead, nobody cared that Stalin killed 10's of millions.

People do care, and sane people recognize him for the bloodthirsty dictator he was. Unfortunately, he couldn't be removed by pressure or force, being the absolute ruler of a superpower.

The only reason why people cared about the 6 million by Hitler was that jews had a lot of money and pushed it into the faces of the politicos.

Ted wrote:The only reason why people cared about the 6 million by Hitler was that jews had a lot of money and pushed it into the faces of the politicos.

Try to say that in front of WWII veterans that liberated concentration camps, or families that got their life in danger (often being sent to concentration camps as well) by helping Jews.

You're being truthfull to your nickname, aren't you?

Please, read some history books about WWII and the Holocaust before puting this comments.

I'd just like too point something about the Holocaust news articles in Alled War newspapers. Initially, it was shown many times around America's Declaration of War on Japan and Germany's Declaration of war on the US. Then by June 1942 they had all but disappeared. It is believed that it was due racism and "secruity issues". It may also be so that German citizens wouldn't be murdered by American Fundamentalist Jews. It wasn't until GI's and Doughboys started writing back did the Allies release the dossier. No one is postively sure why. So when it was happening it was not prsented much like Saddam's initial war crimes. So it was actually pushed after the fact, not during most of the war. But then again the Allies also had too concentrate espionage too bring Germany's downfall.

Warspite wrote:

Ted wrote:The only reason why people cared about the 6 million by Hitler was that jews had a lot of money and pushed it into the faces of the politicos.

Please, read some history books about WWII and the Holocaust before puting this comments.

Then tell me why ships full of jews fleeing from Germany were turned back from EVERYWHERE and ended back in Germany?

They could've done something, but no-one in power cared.

The average citizen didn't know about the holocaust, hell, my grandmother who was a teacher in England during the war never found out about it until post-war, when the news reels showed clips of the death camps.

Colonel Olrik wrote:

Ted wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:Saddam is responsible for 1.25 million deaths, and Iraq has a small fraction of the population of the western world. Germany has more people then there are Arabs

The USA and UN is responsible for just as many.

He's talking in proportional therms. Are you claiming that the U.S is the sole responsible for 1/8 of the Western world population, which amounts to about 100 million dead?

I'm talking about the number of dead Iraqis.

And who cares about the number of dead, nobody cared that Stalin killed 10's of millions.

People do care, and sane people recognize him for the bloodthirsty dictator he was. Unfortunately, he couldn't be removed by pressure or force, being the absolute ruler of a superpower.

The Soviet Union in 1930 was NOT a super-power.

Hell, the USA in 1930 had a greater industrial production base than the USSR did.

I'm talking about the number of dead Iraqis.

What is this bullshit? Is this part of the 'sanctions kill innocent Iraqis!' crap? Because, if you haven't noticed, Saddam has quite a lot of money.

And if you honestly think that America caused 1.25 millions civilian deaths in the Gulf War, you need to be smacked soundly on the back of your head.

The Soviet Union in 1930 was NOT a super-power.

Hell, the USA in 1930 had a greater industrial production base than the USSR did.

Yes! Start a war with a nation on the other side of the globe, that can't be sustained, with no ability to project that power, during an economic depression! Brilliant!

Ted wrote:
Then tell me why ships full of jews fleeing from Germany were turned back from EVERYWHERE and ended back in Germany?

They could've done something, but no-one in power cared.

The portuguese embassador in France saved thousands of lives by giving portuguese entry visas to jews wanting to flee. That action costed him his career and his fortune, as the portuguese fascist regime didn't want to piss off Hitler [Not that they particulary liked him, it was just that Spain would join the axis in an invasion of Portugal, if we entered the war, and our African colonies weren't exactly safe from the Nazis, neither]. Just one of many examples of people who knew, and cared.

Ted wrote: [...]
Then tell me why ships full of jews fleeing from Germany were turned back from EVERYWHERE and ended back in Germany?

They could've done something, but no-one in power cared.

The average citizen didn't know about the holocaust, hell, my grandmother who was a teacher in England during the war never found out about it until post-war, when the news reels showed clips of the death camps.

Your initial quote claims it was "wealthy and politically motivated" Jews that created people's awareness for the Holocaust, without any intervening instruments, when in fact the news came from normal frontline soldiers, from all denominations. Besides, the concetration camps were deep inside Germany, Chekoslovakia, and Poland and controlled by the SS, meaning they could keep secrets, most German citizens didn't know about the concentration camps, even those that lived near them. (I strongly advice the two last episodes of Band of Brothers, they convey a most realistic sensation about the concentration camps.)

The fact that the Human being could commit such atrocities is enough to care, without someone going around screaming about it, wouldn't you think?


Now, as for Jews being bounced around the place...

First, Jews have been disliked all over Europe throughout the times, the Spanish Inquisition originated a mass immigration of the Jewish people, even in Portugal it has happened.
Also, you know how people are wary of those who hold much wealth, and since the Jews were the rich people... (I'm thinking right now of Charlie Chaplin's Dictator,.)
OK, end of WWII, several million homeless, taterless Jews. Where to put them?
All the nations of Europe are in the shit, they're broke, their primary concern is rebuild from the storm that devastated them for six years, they don't need several more million people to come knocking on their doors. Nobodoy wanted them, because nobody could afford to house a few more million (if that many) that weren't even their own citizens any more.
SO, after going around a few times, they ended up in the only country suitable for them, a country that basically returned to the Stone Age (or at least Middle Ages with modern technology, most German-folk returned to the barter system), a country with a controlling body suitable to handle several million homeless people. Germany.

A little bit Off-Topic, but I read one book a couple years back, about Hitler's High-Command (I lost the reference, sorry), from the '36 right through the War, but more interesting are the years leading to WWII, and one of the original plans for the Ultimate Solution was to move the Jewish population to the Island of Madagascar.
Hitler hoped to reach an agreement with the British Government (and consequently, France), but Churchill came to power, ruining it's plans and creating this whole mess.

Ted wrote: The only reason why people cared about the 6 million by Hitler was that jews had a lot of money and pushed it into the faces of the politicos.

You're right. It had nothing to do with soldiers finding the Death Camps and being horrified, and newsreel coverage of camps being sent back to the States.

Darth Wong wrote:Enlightenment..[has] no love in his heart for any human being, maybe not even himself. That's his basic problem; have you ever seen him say anything good about anyone or anything? ...

Come to think of it, he has a very cold heart about all people. Someone with this much callousness towards other people may be a reflection of self-loathing but without being a psychologist I couldn't make a definitive statement...

Let's put a stake the the heart of the blatant LIE that UN sanctions are killing Iraqi civilions through starvation and lack of medicine.

Point one, the palaces. Gigantor class luxo-pits, some inlaid with gold, cost Multi-millions.(Buy a lot of food ehh? ALL dictators like to build monuments to themselves.)

Point two, go to http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/ ... 2349.shtml
and notice that Saddam has 20m$ in the escroe acount, for the oil for food program. This means he could buy 10m$ worth of food and medicine, and have it shipped next day FEDEX, and no one need starve. (You always get screwed on delivery charges when shopping over the net!)

Note to the stupid:
ALL savvy dictators use starvation as a double edged weapon, Starve those not in favour, and blame the deaths on your enemies!


And yes, Enlightenment. Curious name for one, the word conjours up a gentle loving person, much like the "Master Po" character in the TV show "Kung fu". (An extreemly aware, well educated man, gentle, yet with steel in his spine.
This one is different. Narcissisitic to the nth degre, unmoved by the suffering of other. Provided he doesn't know them personally. Yes you're right, I can't remember a single post from this overeducated cynic, that wasn't condesending, smug, and dripping with contempt for those of us who disagree with him.

So we obviously are not as "enlighted" as he is.
This man doesn't treat his friends this way, else he would have none, yet WE are perfectly fine to misbehave around.
I believe the inability to get smacked across the face, lends more venom to flame warriors.

PS, I have had a few "attitude adjustments" in my day when I was over the line, too.