From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Thu Jun 12 2003 - 02:11:43 MDT
On Wednesday 11 June 2003 11:04, matus@matus1976.com wrote:
> Emyln commented:
> > Not true. No war, no war casualties.
>
> Right, so Saddam Hussein insisted on a war, and had *no* right to continue
> his rule over the Iraqi people. If Saddam had left, no war, and no war
> causalties. Yet you still blame the war causalities on the coalition, and
> not the corrupt murderous dictator who felt it his right to rule over
> millions of people.
>
We, America, insisted on a war. Many countries tried to tell us it was not
needed. Many of our own people tried to do so. But we were railroaded on
the basis of WMD which we really had no good evidence for and which never
materialized.
If Bush and company had backed down then there would not have been this
senseless waste of time, energy, goodwill and money for nothing. Nor are we
likely to extricate ourselves gracefully from the resulting mess for some
time and at ever more expense in dollars, time, goodwill and lives.
> I will grant you that people may have
>
> > died by the actions of their government, somewhat counteracting the
> > difference between war and peace (slightly).
>
> *may*? Whats the figure now, 300,000 in mass graves? May!? Yeah, im sure
> ol Saddam would have just stopped his mass killings, oppressive rule, and
> exploitation. What about the deaths from the sanctions, which as a result
> of the war, have been lifted.
>
You know as well as I that that WAS NOT THE REASON we went so trying to
whitewash this senselessness afterward with such is highly dishonest.
>
> Again, the moral culpability lies on Saddam, not the Coalition. Saddam and
> the Baath party could have easily agreed to and facilitied a peaceful
> change in government, and he *chose* not to. *chose*. No power outages,
> no water shortages, no phone problems, no cluster bombs, no rioting. etc.
> etc. etc. Saddam is still to blame for each and every death, you completely
> MISS the point that he has NO RIGHT to be a dictator, and thus anything
> that results from his insisting he remain a dictator he is morally culpable
> for.
>
No, you cannot put the entire culpability on Saddam. We were the invaders. We
are the occupiers. We did not need to be. Some of the power outages and
water shortages and so on were not even necessary according to our own
statements of what was and was not a legitimate target and our much vaunted
ability to hit more or less only what we wish to hit. If you are going to
continue to be dishones then I will ignore you on this subject from this time
forward.
> You have no right to take over your neighbors house by force, and are
> morally culpable in everything that happens as a result. In the US system
> of law, you are held morally accountable if anyone dies, even a member of
> the group committing a crime, while in the act of committing a crime. You
> are the criminal taking over the neighbors house, if you friend helping you
> dies in the process, you are held morally accountable. You have no more
> right to take over a neighborhood than your neighboors house, and you have
> no more right to take over a country than you have your neighboorhood. You
> have no right to continue to rule over that country. You are morally
> accountable for every death that occurs from the freeing of those you rule
> over. How can you DARE imply that I would be as morraly culpable from
> deaths that result in my attempt to free the neighborhood, or country, you
> have taken by force, when you have no right to rule that country!!!
>
> In the US system of law, you are also held morally accountable for deaths
> that result from 'depraved indifference', which I assert each and ever war
> opposer is guilty of.
OK. You are out of your mind on this one. I hope you get over it.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jun 12 2003 - 02:19:44 MDT