chucK

I think you guys have a good point about intent. I'm in agreement that the terrorists kidnapping civilians are evil. I have never attempted to justify their acts. I think those of you who may think I am justifying the kidnapping and killing of innocents by alleging wrongs by the US side are reading something into my words that I have not stated nor intended to imply. Now, while we're speaking of intent, what do you call ingniting a conflagration (on false pretenses [debatable]) where you know with certainty that many innocents will die. Some of you may still be calling this self defense. I'm thinking it's more analogous to depraved indifference. If you're willing to concede that the igniters went ahead with a very small safety margin and this caused the fire to be much worse, then you get at least negligent manslaughter right? So in this Iraq War we got a number of instances of murder one by the terrorists (10 - 100, 500 maybe?), death seems a fitting punishment. Then you got probably 10,000 counts of death through depraved indifference, 40,0000 counts of negligent manslaughter. What should be the punishment for that? Taking away the matches maybe? At least?

I guess this is what this thread has evolved\boiled down to. I agree completely with Kasky's statement here. Human life has become very cheap in Iraq. It's a great tragedy.

They are certainly 'less innocent' if they had guns and were firing at our troops. There is no moral equivalency here. I was talking here about civilians rounded up and sent to Abu Ghraib, not the guy who got executed in Fallujah on Saturday. There are tens of thousands of Iraqis, woman and children, dead by our weaponry, who never raised a gun and fired at our troops. I think it's these people that we're comparing to the CARE-woman victim.

Both events are horrible. I'm a little taken back by your implication that the people the US has put in prison are somehow less innocent than the British/Iraqi woman. Didn't you read the reports that 70% of the imprisoned were believed to be innocent by the US? Their side is doing horrible things. Our side is doing horrible things. That's what happens in a war. The main war criminal here is Bush who pushed us into this war. He started it, and he compounded the damage by being stupid about it.

Regardless of what really went down, when it becomes known to the insurgents that surrendering may just get them tortured and/or killed, fighting to the death is going to be a much more likely option. That has a good chance of making it much harder for the average coalition soldier involved in a firefight. It seems quite possible that what the US soldier did was justified. But if it wasn't, then worrying about whether the dead Iraqi guy deserved it or not, is not the only problem caused by that act. In the end it will likely end up producing more US casualties. Those kids are going through hell over there right now, and I'll be the last to place blame on any of them. It's merely another unavoidable horror of war. I'm just trying to make the point that that act did not help our side, no matter how much you hate terrorists and think they deserve to die.

I thought it was called "Wing Lake".

You left out the best part. The survey also asked some (other?) people what was their #1 issue in an open ended way (that is, didn't give them choices to choose from) and moral issues did worse than Iraq and terrorism.

I got Jesus Lizard, Boss Hog and Helmet, Surgery, and Tar Peels Sessions. Those Peels Sessions are almost always good

So how does p1 of Sunblessed (the current version) compare to Merci Me?

with the addition of having some portion of any surplus go to paying off national debt.

That's lovely how this is no longer Bush's or Saddam's fault, but now it's those damn Brit's. Similarities: 4) war kicked off via false pretenses Differences: 1) no forced conscription of US victims yet. 2) domestic opposition to current quagmire seems fully focused on US administration, rather than the troops; i.e., no protesters crying "baby killers!" yet. 3) have not yet launched invasions into neighboring nations harboring insurgents (unless you count Iraq as the neighboring nation harboring the insurgents fleeing from Afghanistan).

This discussion is supposed to be "compare and contrast Iraq and Vietnam". I don't see how delving into the threat that Iran poses makes sense. Unless of course you are implying that Iran and North Korea were much greater threats to our security than Iraq ever was. From which it would follow that you are saying that the justifications we used to enter into this Iraq conflict were flimsy at best. From which stance you could make a good point about the similarity of this war to the Vietnam conflict.

Oh and BTW, I've changed my tune on the flat tax. I think it's a great idea as long as the standard deduction is 50-100K dollars. So, that is, flat tax on all earnings over standard deduction.

How can those figures be correct? How can 15% sales tax take the place of revenues garnered from a 25% (and higher on rich people) income tax?

Should we allow nuclear proliferation to occur? Your premise was that they weren't more dangerous.

How can you consider it broken?? Before we arrived it was a horrible place to live with genocide taking place everywhere you looked. Uday and Qusay froliced in their rape rooms on top of sacred ancient mass burial grounds. No Iraqi was left untouched! On top of that they were a danger to the security of every single person in the USA. How can you consider it broken??! Don't you think Iraq is a better place without Saddam?

That an easy one. If they aren't more dangerous, then we certainly shouldn't invade them.

I thought you wanted to stay the course? If I thought there was a good way out, I wouldn't call it "no-win" now would I?

I don't think Iraq or Vietnam are situations where the people want to "take down the big dog". I think it's more like they want to kick the shit out of that big dog that's shitting all over their furniture and having their children for snacks. It's a no-win situation. If we continue to get our asses kicked over there that will, of course, suck. If we somehow win (at obviously great cost as we have already paid a great price) it may ring hollow, as a "victory" will embolden "our" leaders to move on to the next nation-state that needs to be disciplined. Although, I could be wrong about the second part. I don't really think Bush had the safety and security of the world in mind when he "rushed to war" against Iraq. Thus, I don't think it would be a given that he would move as recklessly against other nations as he did in Iraq, even though they are arguably as or more dangerous than Iraq ever was. Finally here's distressing tidbit from the news today reminiscent of Vietnam days.

Here's some good news from Iraq for all you Kool-Aid peddlers

Driving to and from Index yesterday I heard two very powerful pieces on the radio relating to veterans of this Iraq war. I found today that they are both available on the internet. Dave Ross talks to local man who lost his nephew recently in Fallujah That link might be funky. If so you can find it linked on the KIRO 710 am website. Families Share Soldiers' 'Last Letters Home' These were two very powerful and believable pieces. I'd be very surprised if even you pro-war guys would listen to them and call them propaganda. I think all you pro-war guys should listen to both of these pieces to at least get a visceral feel for the magnitude of the sacrifice you are asking young americans to make.

Who's heading up to Index today? I'll be up there around 11:45 or so (truck that sorta looks like this -> ). Should be other cc.commies up there too if the hastily arranged post-pub-club plan falls together. See you there! Lower Town Wall probably, slight chance of Private Idaho.

So? You're losing me again here Kakslskfjlj(?) Again with the analogies to WWII. Why does your implication that Normandy was a bad move justify invading Iraq in 2004?

So are we looking now at the "darkness before dawn"? Or do you not even concede that things seem pretty bad at the moment?

I agree with your "War is Hell" statement, and I might buy into your belief that our wars are cleaner than they used to be. However, your implication that our elective invasion of Iraq resulting in 10,000 US casualties and 100,000 Iraqi deaths, is justified because everybody knows war is hell and at least we took more than two days to kill 80,000 civilians, doesn't do it for me. Sorry.