Drone War Expansion Sparks Questions About Effectiveness, Oversight

[Cancel 2016.11]

I also don't support ignoring and through inaction making ourselves responsible for genocide and mass killings. Again, if through our positive action by incarcerating a "head of family" for a crime has the same negative impact on a family, is it our fault for incarcerating him, or his fault for committing the crime?

Choosing to do nothing is still a choice.

Putting a murderer in prison does not kill his kids, you are making no sense as usual. It's what happens to you every time you attempt to go down this false equivalency path. You are really bad at it.

I don't know what you are saying here. So you feel that Saddam was murdering hundreds of thousands of children and that to stop him, we had to murder hundreds of thousands of children? You feel that this is the moral choice? I don't think that you are really a Buddhist, but I don't want to use your religion against you. STill...sorry I don't think you can make that argument and square it with your alleged religious beliefs.

 

[Phantasmal]

I also don't support ignoring and through inaction making ourselves responsible for genocide and mass killings. Again, if through our positive action by incarcerating a "head of family" for a crime has the same negative impact on a family, is it our fault for incarcerating him, or his fault for committing the crime?

Choosing to do nothing is still a choice.

The only problem with your reasoning is that the sanctions were not placed on Iraq because of genocide and mass killings.

 

[zappasguitar]

yeah...you have your fat fingers all over this apparently.

did he hurt your wittle feelings and then you ran crying to grind...am i right or am i right you dumb fatty.

And just when I thought he couldn't possible stoop any lower, ol ButtHurtYurt shows how devoid of originality he truly is and goes for a petty schoolyard FAT joke.

I haven't seen anyone desperate enough to resort to fat jokes since the two frigid friends of USF got the boot last year...LOL!

Now that's just sad...and on so many different levels.

 

[Damocles]

Putting a murderer in prison does not kill his kids, you are making no sense as usual. It's what happens to you every time you attempt to go down this false equivalency path. You are really bad at it.

Yet it may put them in poverty, and though that "starve" them. It isn't a false equivalency, it is real. Our actions, either choosing not to act or choosing to act have consequences.

I don't know what you are saying here. So you feel that Saddam was murdering hundreds of thousands of children and that to stop him, we had to murder hundreds of thousands of children? You feel that this is the moral choice? I don't think that you are really a Buddhist, but I don't want to use your religion against you. STill...sorry I don't think you can make that argument and square it with your alleged religious beliefs.

Again, murder requires direct action. Was it the action of Saddam to choose not to feed people with the money given to him by the UN to feed people, or was it our action to try to stop the government from killing people that is at fault?

If we "support" the murder by doing nothing at all we are responsible, if we act to end it and thus ensure that in the end there will be less deaths we have done the right thing.

It depends on both the result and the goal. If we render ourselves ineffective by taking no action at all we are worse than we are if our action causes a temporary situation that can, for a shorter period, cause some suffering.

While I may not like sanctions, I would dislike even more to live a world where no action at all is taken to end genocide, rape, mass killings and torture.

 

[Phantasmal]

Yet it may put them in poverty, and though that "starve" them. It isn't a false equivalency, it is real. Our actions, either choosing not to act or choosing to act have consequences.


Again, murder requires direct action. Was it the action of Saddam to choose not to feed people with the money given to him by the UN to feed people, or was it our action to try to stop the government from killing people that is at fault?

If we "support" the murder by doing nothing at all we are responsible, if we act to end it and thus ensure that in the end there will be less deaths we have done the right thing.

It depends on both the result and the goal. If we render ourselves ineffective by taking no action at all we are worse than we are if our action causes a temporary situation that can, for a shorter period, cause some suffering.

While I may not like sanctions, I would dislike even more to live a world where no action at all is taken to end genocide, rape, mass killings and torture.

We supported Iraq when Saddam was killing his own people. The sanctions were not the result of genocide, rape or torture. The sanctions were the result of oil and Saddam invading Kuwait.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

And just when I thought he couldn't possible stoop any lower, ol ButtHurtYurt shows how devoid of originality he truly is and goes for a petty schoolyard FAT joke.

I haven't seen anyone desperate enough to resort to fat jokes since the two frigid friends of USF got the boot last year...LOL!

Now that's just sad...and on so many different levels.

wow...you're touchy about fat jokes....i wonder why

you can call people douchebags, and that is cool, but, say someone is fat...and oh MY FRACKIN GOODNESS, you have a hissy fit

fat bastard

 

[Damocles]

We supported Iraq when Saddam was killing his own people. The sanctions were not the result of genocide, rape or torture. The sanctions were the result of oil and Saddam invading Kuwait.

Which changes nothing at all about what I say. The sanctions, from the UN, were not a result of "oil", nor was the money given to him in sales of oil to feed people and buy medicine a cause to let Saddam off the hook when he didn't use the money to feed people or buy medicine...

The reality: Saddam chose not to feed people, even though he was specifically given money to do that. Does that make it his action that starved people or the action of the UN who were trying to stop an out of control government from committing genocide on its own people and invading neighbors?

One can argue the effectiveness of Sanctions, but saying we should never act because they may cause temporary harm is worse than acting. What action would you take for a government committing genocide? Should we invade them and take over? Would that be better? Or should we simply ignore it and hope it goes away thus taking responsibility inherent in that choice?

 

[Phantasmal]

Which changes nothing at all about what I say. The sanctions, from the UN, were not a result of "oil", nor was the money given to him in sales of oil to feed people and buy medicine a cause to let Saddam off the hook when he didn't use the money to feed people or buy medicine...

The reality: Saddam chose not to feed people, even though he was specifically given money to do that. Does that make it his action that starved people or the action of the UN who were trying to stop an out of control government from committing genocide on its own people and invading neighbors?

One can argue the effectiveness of Sanctions, but saying we should never act because they may cause temporary harm is worse than acting. What action would you take for a government committing genocide? Should we invade them and take over? Would that be better? Or should we simply ignore it and hope it goes away thus taking responsibility inherent in that choice?

Well, it does change what you stated.

 

[zappasguitar]

wow...you're touchy about fat jokes....i wonder why

you can call people douchebags, and that is cool, but, say someone is fat...and oh MY FRACKIN GOODNESS, you have a hissy fit

fat bastard

Have yourself a ball, nothing you might say could possibly provide a clearer picture of just how dumb you really are than your inability to come up with anything more original than schoolyard fat jokes.

It speaks VOLUMES about just how truly stunted your "intellect" is and how verbally challenged you really are...ROTFLMAO!

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

If we are responsible for those who starve in a nation we sanction, then we are responsible for the children of a murderer having to go on welfare because their daddy is no longer paying the bills.

Does this mean we should no longer incarcerate people regardless of the crime? Or we, as citizens of the world, should ignore atrocities because action may make some leaders starve their people? What exactly are we saying here?

God, Damo - that is a painfully bad analogy.

To ignore that there are consequences to the economic actions we take is pathetic. To try to rationalize that by offering up horrific, illogical false analogies is worse.

 

[Phantasmal]

Have yourself a ball, nothing you might say could possibly provide a clearer picture of just how dumb you really are than your inability to come up with anything more original than schoolyard fat jokes.

It speaks VOLUMES about just how truly stunted your "intellect" is and how verbally challenged you really are...ROTFLMAO!

Poor yurt, people can lose weight, but stupid is stupid and you can't change yurt, who is stupid.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Oh who cares about spurt's juvenile nonsense? He's using that to divert attention from the fact that he's been told I was not involved in the incident that got Tom banned. It's the same crap with the titmouse, never admit he was wrong, just start whining about something else.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

God, Damo - that is a painfully bad analogy.

To ignore that there are consequences to the economic actions we take is pathetic. To try to rationalize that by offering up horrific, illogical false analogies is worse.

It's scary to think that this somehow makes sense inside of Damo's head.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Which changes nothing at all about what I say. The sanctions, from the UN, were not a result of "oil", nor was the money given to him in sales of oil to feed people and buy medicine a cause to let Saddam off the hook when he didn't use the money to feed people or buy medicine...

The reality: Saddam chose not to feed people, even though he was specifically given money to do that. Does that make it his action that starved people or the action of the UN who were trying to stop an out of control government from committing genocide on its own people and invading neighbors?

One can argue the effectiveness of Sanctions, but saying we should never act because they may cause temporary harm is worse than acting. What action would you take for a government committing genocide? Should we invade them and take over? Would that be better? Or should we simply ignore it and hope it goes away thus taking responsibility inherent in that choice?

Temporary harm?????

I didn't even read all of this, my mouth literally was agape when I saw that. Temporary harm???? Wow.

Well it looks as if you've managed to justify the deaths of so many innocents in your own mind. I guess Buddhists really aren't any different than the Christians eh? Very interesting.

Sometimes it almost seems as if the atheists and agnostics can't find ways to justify death. I guess that is what makes them bad people huh?

 

[Damocles]

Well, it does change what you stated.

No, it doesn't.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

No, it doesn't.

That's like saying that you're a guy who sells chocolate, but that one day you decided to sell peppermint, and someone came and asked for chocolate anyway.

I mean, get real.

 

[Damocles]

Temporary harm?????

Again, what do you think the better action is? You've given nothing. Ignoring it and doing nothing is worse than the sanctions.

I didn't even read all of this, my mouth literally was agape when I saw that. Temporary harm???? Wow.

Yeah, can't bother actually trying to understand the question, you just pretend that it is a statement.

Well it looks as if you've managed to justify the deaths of so many innocents in your own mind. I guess Buddhists really aren't any different than the Christians eh? Very interesting.

They are questions. Again, what action do you think is better? Doing nothing at all makes "us" responsible for the murders we do nothing to stop which will go on in perpetuity.

Sometimes it almost seems as if the atheists and agnostics can't find ways to justify death. I guess that is what makes them bad people huh?

I am an agnostic. Buddhism has nothing to say about any god. The ignorant seem able to justify inaction and make themselves believe that absolves them of responsibility, the intelligent understand it simply changes what you are responsible for.

Here is what the post asked you:

Which would you rather be responsible for, the death of millions or "hundreds of thousands"?

And lastly, the first question I asked.

And this too:

When Saddam simply took the money given him to buy food and medicine do you think that made him responsible for his actions or do you think the responsibility lies with the people who gave him the money for food and medicine?

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Damo we knew what was happening. Albright acknowledged the deaths and said they were "worth it" and Colin Powell simply dismissed the number as something that he "was not very interested in". We knew that as direct result of our sanctions, hundreds of thousands were suffering and dying. We knew how to stop it.

As for your ridiculous claim that Saddam was "murdering millions" and we had to murder hundreds of thousands to save millions...it's utter nonsense all across the board. You're full of shit and spouting a bunch of neocon propaganda.

I will admit this is the first I've heard of you're being an agnostic. I consider that a slur, but what are you going to do. Actually I think you are just very confused. Maybe you can find something else to call yourself? I guess it's okay because I am not really that much of an agnostic these days. I don't know how the others will feel though. I can't imagine they will feel good.

 

[Disillusioned]

If we are responsible for those who starve in a nation we sanction, then we are responsible for the children of a murderer having to go on welfare because their daddy is no longer paying the bills.

Does this mean we should no longer incarcerate people regardless of the crime? Or we, as citizens of the world, should ignore atrocities because action may make some leaders starve their people? What exactly are we saying here?

You do seem to be making a stretch here, we are responsible for our actions, when you choose the action you choose the consequences, there is a reason to lock up the criminal after the courts have decided their fate, however our sanctions seem to be more on the order of "Because it's politically correct to not like you and we have no sense of repercussion."

 

[Disillusioned]

Temporary harm?????

I didn't even read all of this, my mouth literally was agape when I saw that. Temporary harm???? Wow.

Well it looks as if you've managed to justify the deaths of so many innocents in your own mind. I guess Buddhists really aren't any different than the Christians eh? Very interesting.

Sometimes it almost seems as if the atheists and agnostics can't find ways to justify death. I guess that is what makes them bad people huh?

Atheists and agnostics justify death all the time, "greater good, importance of order, need for peace, for the children, for the best."

As for the temporary harm, all harm is temporary, unless you're talking about cracking the world into pieces, death is death, an invasion is harmful no matter who got invaded first.