Originally posted by StarValleyWyI have a brain tumour. It gives me headaches. But it won't progress.
Is that "The World Is Better Off Without Saddam"
then "But... it was wrong to remove him."
Think of it. A real miracle. Two supposedly true statements that are mutually exclusive.
Which is it?
It can't be both. That would be a miracle. This miracle can best be said as "The Removal Of Saddam Didn't Require The War"
I call it the ...[text shortened]... ng you support the terrorists over the people of Iraq as demonstrated for the world last Sunday.
So, would I now be better off without it, yes or no?
Yes, presumably. No headaches.
However, removing the tumour will kill me. It's inoperable.
So, does it follow from the fact that I would be better off without the tumour that I should remove it?
No. Because dying is worse than headaches.
Similarly, just because the world would be better off without Saddam does not AUTOMATICALLY mean that the act of removing him is justified--because of the potential costs and complications of removing him which obviously wouldn't be at issue if he wasn't removed.
*sigh*
Originally posted by StarValleyWyYour statements "The World Is Better Off Without Saddam"
Is that "The World Is Better Off Without Saddam"
then "But... it was wrong to remove him."
Think of it. A real miracle. Two supposedly true statements that are mutually exclusive.
Which is it?
It can't be both. That would be a miracle. This miracle can best be said as "The Removal Of Saddam Didn't Require The War"
I call it the ...[text shortened]... ng you support the terrorists over the people of Iraq as demonstrated for the world last Sunday.
and "But... it was wrong to remove him" can easely be answered:
Yes and No. No miracle here then.
But lets look at the idea behind your first statement, which is, I think (correct me if I'm wrong):
The World Is Better Off Without Saddam combined with the way we removed him.
Then I'll go out on a limb, just for the argument, and say the world is NOT better of without Saddam.
How would the world look if Saddam was still in power?
First of all, lets look at the positive consequences.
100,000 Iraqy civilans and 1,500 americans would still be alive.
Falluja, along with many other Iraqy cities would still be standing, instead of now, where there is a pile of rubbles.
The cultural history of Iraq would still be intact. And since the Iraqy area is the birthplace of civilization consequently the world's cultural history would still be intact.
USA wouldn't have concentrated most of her foreign ability in one area of the world. She would perhaps be able to do something about the genocide in the Darfur region.
There wouldn't be a split in the coalition between USA and Europe.
USA wouldn't have spent $250 billions on the war. Those money could have been spent on foreign aid or even national health care in the US, you decide for yourself.
There wouldn't be a large base for the terrorists to work from in Iraq. Saddam was a paranoid dictator, and that is one of the most efficient ways to combat terrorism. Paranoid dictators don't like ideologically based terrorism, because it is impossible to control.
The Iragy people wouldn't be terrorized by suicide bombs.
The relations between the Muslim Arab and the Industrialized Christian world wouldn't be as tense as they are today.
Secondly, lets look at the negative consequences.
Saddam would still terrorize the Iraqy people.
Iraq would still be under international blockade, thus killing thousands of Iraqy infants every month.
Now to summerize, which scenario would you prefer?
This is a choice between bad and worse.
On one hand you have a more secure world than today, and on the other hand you have a terrorized nation. But there are so many terrorized nations that we don't do anything about. Just look at North Korea, Myanmar (Burma), Syria, Sudan, Iran, China, Belorussia, and Mongolia (dare I say Palestine?). Not to mention all the places in the world that I don't know about.
So in a worldwide perspective I think the world would actually be better of with Saddam in power. This is a very cynical statement, because I haven't calculated with such impalpable subjects as human rights and our own self estime. Those are of course impossible to weigh.
Regards nicky
There maybe a point to SVW’s ramblings…..
I think its based on an article I read somewhere (sorry source unknown) In summary so bear with me - Try to perceive the message our actions could be sending to the Iraqi people. Think about the anti war protests and the media messages against war, do they still enforce the message that they are also anti Saddam? Do they display anti Saddam posters as well as anti war posters, do the media channels that oppose war also communicate that they oppose Saddam? And are there actions too late now that the war is actually well under way, past tense or if you like a reality. If the anti war protestors had both anti saddam and anti war posters in evidence then there would be grey areas in this arugument, but as they do not exist the argument has infact been made black and white, or binary if you like by the masses.
So in the binary created universe for this issue if you don’t support the war you give propaganda ammunition to Saddam, you may not support the man but he may use your actions and others actions in agreement with you for his own nefarious ends. Hence you are supporting Saddam by not supporting the war.
Who knows if this is the logic behind the question, if it is then I can only answer the binary question asked by SVW in one way. I dont support Saddam, so therefore I must support the war, so I circle YES.
IF SVW had asked for a emotional response the answer may differ.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyThe rest of us see what happened as compared to what didn't happen
I give up.
Impossible for an idiot.
The rest of us see what happened as compared to what didn't happen.
What a bunch of air headed tom-foolery.
Sorry. Go watch a cartoon. You will feel better. And understand it much better than what reality offers you.
Saddam. Not Saddam. It happened.
Choose.
1 = Not Saddam
2 = Saddam
Crap. ...[text shortened]... t didn't happen. Saddam is "not" did happen. Saddam "is" didn't happen. Choose one or two.
Hmm, that's funny, i don't see any post from the rest of you in here. Must be my stupidity getting in the way again.
Originally posted by marinakatombThis isn't getting us anywhere. See my new post on Critical Thinking. I will try to put the thing in a new light. Sometimes that helps.
[b]The rest of us see what happened as compared to what didn't happen
Hmm, that's funny, i don't see any post from the rest of you in here. Must be my stupidity getting in the way again.[/b]
Ok, you want binary: I'll give you binary:
Yes the world is better with Saddam. I say that because Iran is also
a pain in the butt and Saddam and Iran would continue to fight each
other and have much less fight to offer to the rest of the world.
Now we have the fledgling democracy in Iraq being attacked by the
leftover guards Saddam put in place to precisely counter his removal.
Did you think his buddies would sit by quietly and roll over and play dead when the US attacked? And now Iran and Syria are sending in
little Saddam helpers called insurgents to harrass the US into leaving and to attempt to retake Iraq and have a new Saddam state only with a differant person in charge.
Originally posted by sonhouseThank you. I really, really appreciate your response. At last. Somebody dares to think.
Ok, you want binary: I'll give you binary:
Yes the world is better with Saddam. I say that because Iran is also
a pain in the butt and Saddam and Iran would continue to fight each
other and have much less fight to offer to the rest of ...[text shortened]... d have a new Saddam state only with a differant person in charge.
No. I don't really care. The point is just to let people know that the universe only offers two choices. Everybody who doesn't choose can only have a view and an opinion. Not the moral luxury of having decided before the event and in some small number of cases, acted BEFORE THE DEED.
I applaud you for having chosen. And I trust you did so before the war. You seem quite sure of your decision. That is good.
That is the whole point to the "miracle" and to "critical thinking" threads.
More people need to decide. Then the world will have guidance. As long as people rely on "miracles" and such, we are subject to the actions of those who DO DECIDE.
<edit> Don't let this confuse you. You and I 'chose' in exactly opposing manners. That is OK. It is more than ok, because of the rule of law. We decide our differences by the process that has been prescribed by our culture. In my case, I tried to influence every member of congress in the US to support Bush. I don't know what you did, but it is GREAT THAT YOU DECIDED. That is not a mircle. It is you acting.
"The world is better off without Saddam. Bush was wrong to remove him" Now, THAT is a miracle.
Originally posted by StarValleyWy
You didn't learn anything from watching millions of people stain their finger... marking them for death -- in order to vote to be free of slavery and terror?
When I go to vote, my clothes will be filthy, my body will stink and I will be thirsty. Freedom means no water, no electricity, no fuel-just elections-Iraqi citizen
What will it take to make an impression on you then?