Saddam controlled Afghanistan as well! That's why we invaded, because Saddam attacked with Bin Laden on 9/11. They were allies!

(July 14, 2009 at 12:29 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Come on everyone. Saddam had WMD's and he was going to launch them at the UK and the USA. We needed to invade!

Adrian, are you being serious?

I can see both sides of this argument but I agree more with Pippy. I feel sad for our troops that die but most of them joined after 9/11 and knew they would be actually going to war. It was a choice. It is not a choice for these invaded countries to put up with the innocent civilians being killed. Maybe this is terrible but I don't really consider most soldiers heroes. They are just doing their jobs.

I also don't think you can compare Afghanistan with WWII... first of all, many of the soldiers in WWII didn't chose to go, they were drafted- sent to die by their own countries. I do believe we needed to fight Hitler though, I don't think he is a comparison to Osama or Hussein.

(July 14, 2009 at 7:57 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(July 13, 2009 at 9:20 pm)Pippy Wrote:

Quote:Just so we're clear Pip ... I was specifically referring to the troops since it was "us" (the US & the UK) that instigated the conflict.
No, I don't view all human life as equal, in some parts of the world life is cheap.

If you are care more about a couple thousand dead soldiers than at least 2 million, maybe 4 million dead iraqi and afghanis civilians, you (in my humble opinion) are a sick person in the head. Or at least you have trouble seeing things as they are. By saying that life is cheap, you have made it true. The place where life seems to be cheapest is in your computer chair. I hope this isn't too mean, but what you said is absurd. Just absurd.

OK,

It would be absurd if I couldn't justify it but being me of course I can (whether you agree or not).

So you believe you care about 2 million Afghan dead more than you believe about, for example, your family, is that right?

If so (if that is what you are claiming) then I don't believe you quite simply because I would put my family before anyone else in the world. Then there's that tsunami (Dec 2004 I believe) ... 200,000 people were killed (maybe more) and yes it was horrific but one thing I am absolutely sure of and that is if 10,000 people in my own town had died in similar circumstances (or even dissimilar) that would have been way, way, way more shocking and I would have cared an awful lot more. If 1000 from my home town had died I'd have cared more, if 10 had died I'd probably have cared more. Why? Because these people are people I can relate to and/or I care about more than I do about a whole bunch of strangers around the Indian Ocean. And there's also the fact that I can't really deal with 1000 deaths let alone 200,000 or 2 million ... it's an entirely abstract concept.

So I care about my immediate family most, then my friends and more distant family (I'[d probably put my friends ahead of distant family but that's just me), then people in my community, then my country and then (probably) Europe and America because of cultural similarities and finally places I can't identify with at all like Afghanistan.

So whether you think I'm sick person or not (like I really give a flying [expletive deleted] what you personally think of me, I'm only doing this to justify my position to others and to stop you getting the last word) yeah ... I value others in very different ways and many people have many different values to me for many different reasons ... and yes, having been in the UK army, 20000 British soldiers mean a whole lot more to me than a bunch of Afghani's I have never met.

I would also say that you and others who claim to value life equally are a bunch of deluded fools because it's not what humans do and I suspect you (and they) do it more out of some kind of politically correct (SPIT!) motivation than for any other reason.

So yeah absurd it may be (I don't agree) but nowhere near as absurd as being a scientifically ignorant fool who believes fairy tales over reality.

Kyu

Kyu, you really are full of contradictions!
In your earlier post on this thread you said you agree in principle with " regime change ". Question arises as to why? In this post you seem not to take a world view, so why subscribe to " regime changes "?
By the way, when we last locked horns over Obama's attempt at providing universal healthcare for America, you forcefully ( as ever ) expressed the opinion that you didn't care one bit about the people this would benefit.

---

(July 14, 2009 at 2:25 pm)Rockthatpiano06 Wrote: I can see both sides of this argument but I agree more with Pippy. I feel sad for our troops that die but most of them joined after 9/11 and knew they would be actually going to war. It was a choice. It is not a choice for these invaded countries to put up with the innocent civilians being killed. Maybe this is terrible but I don't really consider most soldiers heroes. They are just doing their jobs.

I also don't think you can compare Afghanistan with WWII... first of all, many of the soldiers in WWII didn't chose to go, they were drafted- sent to die by their own countries. I do believe we needed to fight Hitler though, I don't think he is a comparison to Osama or Hussein.

The sad truth about 20th/21st century warfare is the fact that more civilians die than combatants and they usually have no choice in the matter.
Interesting that you use the word " heroes ". I maintain that in war terms, only a survivor could be classed a " hero ", the dead are all " victims ".
I agree 100% with your second para.

Hey,

Rhizo, thank you for responding. If I may:

Quote:This statement can't be literally true or you would have to be medicated to deal with your grief.

I don't know if that is actually quantifiable. Whether or not I have to be medicated is up to my doctor, and I don't have a doctor. I don't take medication, but I do have my many coping mechanisms. My whole life is coping, like a half-pipe (sort of?). I deal with a lot of grief. It is part of life. I try to look as honestly at reality as I can, but it hurts. So I just content in trying my best, not in real perfection.

I do feel for them, I make myself. I stop and think. I honor them with a moment of my time, and my attention. I do it because it feels very important to me. I understand it sounds like poppy-cock, or (my personal favorite) delusions of grandeur. I am a sucker for french. Good language, good people.

Kyu and I might well be talking about 2 diff things, it happens with us.
But this is another sidetrack.
More concise these days.
No War. Bring 'em home, for everyone's sake. My opinion. Could well be wrong. Thank you.
-Pip

(July 14, 2009 at 2:18 pm)bozo Wrote:

(July 14, 2009 at 12:29 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Come on everyone. Saddam had WMD's and he was going to launch them at the UK and the USA. We needed to invade!

Adrian, are you being serious?

Of course not, who do you take me for?

My view is that the Iraq was initiated for all the wrong reasons, but taking down Saddam was a good thing, so it is justified. I was against the execution of Saddam though, since I stand by human rights and against the death penalty.

My view on the Afghanistan war is that if the intel said Bin Laden was there, we were right to invade. The man committed terrible atrocities against innocent people, and the Afghan government were hiding him. However it is quite clear now that we have no idea where he is, and the war is just getting ridiculous.

So yes, out of Afghanistan asap, same with Iraq. We shouldn't police the world unless we are hunting for someone who threatens the world.

(July 14, 2009 at 2:56 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(July 14, 2009 at 2:18 pm)bozo Wrote:

(July 14, 2009 at 12:29 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Come on everyone. Saddam had WMD's and he was going to launch them at the UK and the USA. We needed to invade!

Adrian, are you being serious?

Of course not, who do you take me for?

My view is that the Iraq was initiated for all the wrong reasons, but taking down Saddam was a good thing, so it is justified. I was against the execution of Saddam though, since I stand by human rights and against the death penalty.

My view on the Afghanistan war is that if the intel said Bin Laden was there, we were right to invade. The man committed terrible atrocities against innocent people, and the Afghan government were hiding him. However it is quite clear now that we have no idea where he is, and the war is just getting ridiculous.

So yes, out of Afghanistan asap, same with Iraq. We shouldn't police the world unless we are hunting for someone who threatens the world.

phew! so glad! I don't always spot ironic wit unfortunately.

(July 14, 2009 at 11:27 am)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't imagine you consciously choose to devalue anyone so much as you realize that is a natural thing that happens in our minds.

Pretty much ... I'd assume an Afghani puts as much value on his/her own life as I do on mine though I still believe there is a certain freedom, life expectation and so on in the West (freedoms, longevities etc. that don't exist in some places) that could be argued to mean our lives have greater expectation therefore greater value but I suppose that is a purely relativistic POV.

The main point I wanted to get across is that the people in Afghanistan mean very little to me (doesn't mean I'm not shocked) because I cannot relate to their POV, their customs or their lives ... it's a bit like being French really, would anyone care if they got nuked? hock:

Kyu

(July 14, 2009 at 2:56 pm)Tiberius Wrote: So yes, out of Afghanistan asap, same with Iraq. We shouldn't police the world unless we are hunting for someone who threatens the world.

The US and GB have always found someone who threatens the world when they needed one. Does it really matter?

Quote:it's a bit like being French really, would anyone care if they got nuked?

I might... I could do without Threadneedle Street.

-Pip