This arguement is just trying to protect criminals using beuracracy. If you have a list of thousands of people who have shared songs illegally, you shouldn't need to have a judge look at every case. From there, I doubt the RIAA is going to be the one collecting evidence. More likely it'll be the police.
You shouldn't need a judge????? Hell why do we need them for anything?? Maybe all of our cops should be Judge Dredd. Police, judge, jury, executioner!
The judge/jury/legal defense teams exist in the American government to protect civil rights and to keep the power of the police in check and vice versa. The day we start to willing shortcut our delicate check and balance system is the day it stops working and the day you invite a KGB police force into America.
It is my view, as with many other posters, that this issue is a civil matter not a criminal matter. Lawyers need to sue copyright infringers into oblivion. We pay the salary and expenses for all law enforcement. I want my money to go to protect me and my family, not the RIAA millionaires. They can use their own damn money! Let the law enforcers worry about murderers, rapists, and terrorists and let the fleet of lawyers for the RIAA earn their money.
Wrong. They've already caught you uploading songs to other users on the internet, which is probable cause to search your computer.
No. Wrong. Only a law official can take actions (like intrusion) with probabable cause. The RIAA is just a bunch of private corporations.
Get this folks....
_They are not law enforcers!_ _They do not have, nor deserve special powers_ (like system intrusion) _They are a bunch of quickly financially degenerative monopolists who are frantically trying to pump water out of a sinking ship_
We can sit in our cheap imitation leather chairs in our overly halogenicly lit cubes, or for those lucky bastards who have an office, an ergonimc leather 300 moving part captains chair in a dark dimly lit cave where non geeks fear to tread, drinking "Bawls" caffenieted drink and bad mouthing the government and the Penatgon from a/. forum, but unless YOU do something then you might as well be standing outside the Senate with a picket sign saying "Take my civil liberties, PLEASE!"
Have you written your politicians????
Yeah I know they all belong at the bottom of the ocean in the bus next to the lawyers, but they are (supposed to be) our voice in the governmental/big business arena.
Have your visited the EFF at least, to take some action?
I know your tired of Ben Franklin's take on this, but its worth repeating (especially if it gets you out of this forum to take some action):
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
BTW..."They" means you if you haven't done squat but sit in these forums and bitch. Especially if your the one who bitches about the screw-ups of the administration and never took the time to vote! Hey...you COULD have recompiled the kernel the next day!
Have a better idea to prevent our eroding civil liberties? GREAT! Get out there and do it!
For all of those with excuses I offer this:
[excusee] But I...
[DR. EVIL] ZIP IT!
[excusee] But...
[DR. EVIL] Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, EX-ZIP-IT A!
[excusee] You dont...
[DR. EVIL] When a problem comes along....you must ZIP IT, ZIP IT GOOD!
[excusee] I dont...
[DR. EVIL] ZING PHU HI BING DU WA ZING PU DO
(subtitle: ZIP IT).
The law says if you put to much alcohol in your body and your out in public or if you shoot up with heroin or use crack that they can lock you up or fine you, or both. There are limits. Why? Because they can have a negative impact on society, just like unchecked genetic augmentation can.
Whatever I deem to be the right price, this is a highly personal limit, and everyone should be free to choose their own limit.ANDAgain, its my perogative. If I want to transform my body and personality, I should be free to do so.
Not at the expense of those who, for one reason or another cannot, be genetically augmented (health conditions, money, etc.).
We deal with what life brings us because, for now, thats the only choice.
So not dealing with what life brings us and seeking to run away from our problems would be a good answer? Isn't that what alcoholics and drug users do? Doesn't seem to work for them, to hear them talk about it.
Your not talking about 'humanity' you are talking about equality
No I mean humanity. If this were to go unchecked, eventually society would associate genetic superiority with becoming more perfect or god-like while those who aren't augmented could wind up being labeled as inferior or second class citizens. If we as society place that kind of value on human life then we have become less human, thusly losing our humanity, and no amount of genetic augmentation will be able to bring it back.
We should not avoid exploring the potentially huge benefits of human GM because of fear of these issues. Likewise we shouldn't rush into modifying people just because we can.
Don't you realize that left unchecked this will become big business? Why wouldn't it be? It would be in huge demand and if you didn't have the latest memory augmentation you wouldn't be hip! You might not get into a good college or might not be able to get a good job without them...
I dont know what the bounds should be. Maybe limiting augmentation to only cure and prevent disease or to aid people who have genetic defects or have been severely injured.
It'll take panels of ethical scientists and elected officials years to come to those hard answers. What I do know is there should be well defined bounds or limitations just like the ones that define our civil liberties (or lack of them).
Why should it stop? Genetic changes are not necessairily 'better', just different.
Because we could go too far. Where do you stop when you augment your genetic structure? How high of a cost will you pay (not just in your own physical or financial situation, but socially as well)? Will you lose your identity to pursue "perfection"? I'm not just talking about modifying my genetic structure to resist an obesity gene. I'm talking about changing your genetic structure so that you "augment" yourself so much that mentally and physically that your persona is completely changed.
If we reached that point, instead of dealing with personal issues we could just modify our genetic structure instead of dealing with what life brings us.
Depends on what you mean by 'humanity'. When do we stop being compassionate, caring individuals? I'd say that has nothing to do with the particular set of genes that the human species carries.
Humanity, to me, is not just about caring about someone else.
This technology could grossly affect the position of the "haves" and "have nots". Obviously this technology will come with a price tag (financially and morally), and probably a hefty one. What happens when the people with the resources become "superhuman" in physical and mental abilities while those without the resources are left as imperfect? Would those who are imperfect become inferior? Would they lose rights to those who are genetically superior? Would genetically inferior people live in fear, intimidation, and distrust of genetically superior people? Will we need to have government quotas in the future to ensure that genetically inferior people can go to ivy league schools and get high profile good paying jobs (engineering, scientific, technical, political, etc.)? Will genetically superior people feel the need to take care of genetically inferior people like parents or big brother?
This is what I mean about losing our humanity. These are the types of social ramifications we will need to deal with.
Really, technology not about right and wrong. It's about power.
And history has proven that power corrupts.
How you use technology is what can be right or wrong. This topic will probably be debated, well probably forever...
It boils down to your sense of ethics, morality, and humanity. But let's face it; is there a right or wrong answer?
Once you start down the path to genetic augmentation where does it stop? Can you stop before you lose your humanity? Who can set that kind of precedent? I cant, nor would I want to.
If it were rendered obsolete, we would lose much in the study and pursuit of Christianity. The OT is not obsolete. God has never changed and never will. He is the same God in the NT as in the OT.
Your concept stems from the assumption that no one is under the influence of God's plan. If you are under the influence of God's plan (and let's face it, many think they aren't but we know they are) if you kick back and do nothing then you are executing God's plan. That's the way it has to be if God is always in control, there can be no exceptions, especially when you consider that God already knows what is to happen. How does he know? It's his plan, he is omnipotent.
Do you not think that Christ will kill and destroy? Ever read the book of Revelation? God's wrath pours out over the Earth and millions are killed. Christ himself will destroy the armies against him at Armageddon and destroy the city of Babylon once and for all. Sounds like Christ is going to bust some heads. Why? To destroy evil. Period.
It wasnt a "turf" of any kind. It was an open forum where I noticed that people had the same questions you had, so I thought you would take interest in it. I wasnt trying to corner you in a room with 800 lb gorillas or Saddam's Republican Guard:)
If you are Christian than this forum should interest you.
I know many Slashdotter's may not want to listen to religious lectures so fair warning to readers.
As you will note in the forums, probably the two most important things discussed are 1)God is always in control 2)God does not contradict himself.
So if God is always in control and always shaping the world and events towards his plan for the future than there is no need for debate, he is in control. If God doesnt contradict himself than all the times it is documented in the Bible when God told the Hebrews to wage war and not leave one enemey alive than why would war be wrong now, considering God is always in control?
It would probably be best to move this discussion to the forum I linked to above as others can help with your issues.
BTW, the commandment from the OT in the original Greek was "Thou shalt not murder", which is given its on definition seperate from kill.
As long as men populate the Earth there will always be confilct. As long as there is conflict you must be prepared to protect yourself.
If a nation with your philospohy was even able to exist, yours would be the first occupied by any agressor, hoping another nation or group of nations would come and liberate it.
Your philosphy assumes every man wants peace. Since every man has not wanted peace since the dawn of time, I see little reason to suspect man will want it in the future...
And no response to terrorist activities that kill innocents will only result in more dead innocents.
If you think that if we just say "sorry" and turn a blind eye and vow to never again prevent terrorist activities and shake hands on it, that the terrorists would just leave us alone than you don't know the religious convictions these people have. They have had these convictions since before Britian was in the Iron Age.
We are percieved as a threat beacuase we are not Islam. There religion calls all other religions false and evil. There god has demanded the destruciton of that evil. These people arent Sunday only church goers, their religion is everything to them and defines there existence.
Don't just go along with what you see on PBS. "Think for yourself, schmuck!" --Robert Anton Wilson (written in letters of fire on the wall in front of a startled Moses in a painting described in Illuminatus)
HHmmm PBS presented an entire series about the last 35 years of the documented history of Saddam and Iraq which was composed by many international journalists, Iraqis, heads of state (Iraq, Jordan, UAE, US, Russia, Kuwait, etc.). That combined with all the worlds press over the last 12 years isn't good enough for someone to form an opinion on? Besides sitting next to all of the main players for the last 35 years, I don't see anything better for forming an opinion.
Just to reiterate my above linked post. The driving force behind hostile Islamic states is the hundreds of years of believing that all non-Islams are evil. And I don't mean SNL Dana Carvey evil. It is a religious conviction to destroy this evil they see. They do not barter with evil, they do not sign treaties with evil, and they will not spare evil. There god demands they destroy evil.
If you disagree try visiting the Arabic countries and then you'll realize how true these people are to their beliefs.
Are you confusing killing with murder? This could be read into deeply, but Ill just graze the surface here.
If I read your post correctly, than your saying no would should kill at whatever the consequences or cost are of not killing. What about the protection of human life? Is the not killing through war outweigh the threat of more killing in the future?
Were the American colonies wrong for killing for independence, fighting tyranny and oppression? (Brits need not answer:D )
If killing and war is wrong than were all the allies wrong for rising up to protect themselves and each other against the Nazis?
Would a Jew have been wrong for killing a Nazi in self-defense, after all they were just trying to separate them right???
Is it wrong to kill a known terrorist who has killed in the past and is trying to do so again?
Is it wrong to fight a war with a dictator who does not seek peace but the death and destruction of all who are not with him, including his own civilians and party members?
Sorry but the end does USUALLY justify the means. If you think it doesn't, ask all the French who are still alive since WW2 and all the Jews who were persecuted by the Nazis, I think they would agree the ends justified the means. Or maybe the people of Kuwait? Perhaps we should of let Saddam continue to murder them and destroy their country?
Ever been to the Arabic countries? I have. Some of the Islam nations peoples have been raised to hate all non-Islamic people for hundreds of years. When I mean hate I don't mean they cut you off in traffic, they view non-Islamics as evil.
Maybe its harder for us "Westerners" to understand what "evil" is to these people but after what I have seen first-hand while there, I can tell you that they are very religiously committed and are willing to kill in order to defeat evil. They do not bargain with evil, they do not sign treaties with evil, and they do not spare evil.
It's impossible to have peace with those who don't want it. Does that mean we abandon peace? No. We should always strive for peace but we must be ready to face those who do not seek peace but seek to destroy.
I make no excuses for the American government, they have made mistakes in the past, both Democrats and Republicans, but what government has never acted unjustly?
I was referring to the government of one man, whose public history shows death and destruction for all that present a threat to his personal power. Whose power goes unchecked by his people who are ruled by fear and intimidation.
As most every man is fallible, this would most likely be the case in any goverment where one individual has all the power with no check and balance system to be held accountable to.
I agree, the only good thing about war is the end. But not just because it means people are no longer shooting at each other, but because USUALLY the outcome has left things better than when it started for the future i.e. England and France aren't speaking German right now.
Wars of this new century will not be as defined as ones of the past. Today's wars will probably be built on perceived responsibilities and morals. Of course morals differ from one person to another, so there will always be debate there.
Do we listen to our morals if they tell us to take a stand or should we turn a blind eye and let countries take care of themselves? If countries support terrorism should we act to prevent or just do damage control? Serious questions...glad I don't have to answer them for the country!
Actually it took hundreds of journalists documenting 35 years of death and destruction by Saddam, his party, and his regime to bring me to the conclusion that in order to prevent deaths of the future and prevent mistakes of the past from rising again that we must act today.
This post points back to my parent. Read and learn about what you're commenting about.
The UN imposed and enforced the sanctions.
The UN had the US as a major enforcer because of its military capabilities. It's one of the few counties would had the resources to help the UN enforce its imposed sanctions.
The US didn't kill half a million people with sanctions, or the UN. This regime did. It had the money from oil sales which was supposed to aid the people. Instead it went into the regime and its illegal activities (as noted by the UN). Let's keep the finger of blame in Iraq, where it belongs.
Slashdot Mirror
This arguement is just trying to protect criminals using beuracracy. If you have a list of thousands of people who have shared songs illegally, you shouldn't need to have a judge look at every case. From there, I doubt the RIAA is going to be the one collecting evidence. More likely it'll be the police.
You shouldn't need a judge????? Hell why do we need them for anything?? Maybe all of our cops should be Judge Dredd. Police, judge, jury, executioner!
The judge/jury/legal defense teams exist in the American government to protect civil rights and to keep the power of the police in check and vice versa. The day we start to willing shortcut our delicate check and balance system is the day it stops working and the day you invite a KGB police force into America.
It is my view, as with many other posters, that this issue is a civil matter not a criminal matter. Lawyers need to sue copyright infringers into oblivion. We pay the salary and expenses for all law enforcement. I want my money to go to protect me and my family, not the RIAA millionaires. They can use their own damn money! Let the law enforcers worry about murderers, rapists, and terrorists and let the fleet of lawyers for the RIAA earn their money.
Wrong. They've already caught you uploading songs to other users on the internet, which is probable cause to search your computer.
No. Wrong. Only a law official can take actions (like intrusion) with probabable cause. The RIAA is just a bunch of private corporations.
Get this folks....
_They are not law enforcers!_
_They do not have, nor deserve special powers_ (like system intrusion)
_They are a bunch of quickly financially degenerative monopolists who are frantically trying to pump water out of a sinking ship_
We can sit in our cheap imitation leather chairs in our overly halogenicly lit cubes, or for those lucky bastards who have an office, an ergonimc leather 300 moving part captains chair in a dark dimly lit cave where non geeks fear to tread, drinking "Bawls" caffenieted drink and bad mouthing the government and the Penatgon from a /. forum, but unless YOU do something then you might as well be standing outside the Senate with a picket sign saying "Take my civil liberties, PLEASE!"
Have you written your politicians????
Yeah I know they all belong at the bottom of the ocean in the bus next to the lawyers, but they are (supposed to be) our voice in the governmental/big business arena.
Have your visited the EFF at least, to take some action?
I know your tired of Ben Franklin's take on this, but its worth repeating (especially if it gets you out of this forum to take some action):
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
BTW..."They" means you if you haven't done squat but sit in these forums and bitch. Especially if your the one who bitches about the screw-ups of the administration and never took the time to vote! Hey...you COULD have recompiled the kernel the next day!
Have a better idea to prevent our eroding civil liberties? GREAT! Get out there and do it!
For all of those with excuses I offer this:
[excusee] But I...
[DR. EVIL] ZIP IT!
[excusee] But...
[DR. EVIL] Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, EX-ZIP-IT A!
[excusee] You dont...
[DR. EVIL] When a problem comes along....you must ZIP IT, ZIP IT GOOD!
[excusee] I dont...
[DR. EVIL] ZING PHU HI BING DU WA ZING PU DO
(subtitle: ZIP IT).
Maybe, but could a prosecution prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that they all did it?
If you were on a jury could you knowingly send innocent people to jail (not all roomantes did it after all)?
All the prosecution has is that each roomate had equal access to the computer, not who was actually there.
What if you run a local network and nat all your roomates with DHCP? If the HD doesnt show anything what can actually be proven?
Very interesting theoritcal (plausible defense) case!
CORRECTION!
The only key Verizon holds is WHAT COMPUTER OR LOCAL NETWORK(users with natted firewalls) that the particular IP has been assigned to.
Identifying a person could be another issue, especially if the computer is in a place where it can be accessed by several people.
Hhhmmm, so if I live in a place where I have numerous roomates who share a computer......how do you know who's responsible if no one talks?
You missed the entire point of the post.
My body is mine to do with as a please.
Not according to the law (U.S., IANAL).
The law says if you put to much alcohol in your body and your out in public or if you shoot up with heroin or use crack that they can lock you up or fine you, or both. There are limits. Why? Because they can have a negative impact on society, just like unchecked genetic augmentation can.
Whatever I deem to be the right price, this is a highly personal limit, and everyone should be free to choose their own limit. AND Again, its my perogative. If I want to transform my body and personality, I should be free to do so.
Not at the expense of those who, for one reason or another cannot, be genetically augmented (health conditions, money, etc.).
We deal with what life brings us because, for now, thats the only choice.
So not dealing with what life brings us and seeking to run away from our problems would be a good answer? Isn't that what alcoholics and drug users do? Doesn't seem to work for them, to hear them talk about it.
Your not talking about 'humanity' you are talking about equality
No I mean humanity. If this were to go unchecked, eventually society would associate genetic superiority with becoming more perfect or god-like while those who aren't augmented could wind up being labeled as inferior or second class citizens. If we as society place that kind of value on human life then we have become less human, thusly losing our humanity, and no amount of genetic augmentation will be able to bring it back.
We should not avoid exploring the potentially huge benefits of human GM because of fear of these issues. Likewise we shouldn't rush into modifying people just because we can.
Don't you realize that left unchecked this will become big business? Why wouldn't it be? It would be in huge demand and if you didn't have the latest memory augmentation you wouldn't be hip! You might not get into a good college or might not be able to get a good job without them...
I dont know what the bounds should be. Maybe limiting augmentation to only cure and prevent disease or to aid people who have genetic defects or have been severely injured.
It'll take panels of ethical scientists and elected officials years to come to those hard answers. What I do know is there should be well defined bounds or limitations just like the ones that define our civil liberties (or lack of them).
Why should it stop? Genetic changes are not necessairily 'better', just different.
Because we could go too far. Where do you stop when you augment your genetic structure? How high of a cost will you pay (not just in your own physical or financial situation, but socially as well)? Will you lose your identity to pursue "perfection"? I'm not just talking about modifying my genetic structure to resist an obesity gene. I'm talking about changing your genetic structure so that you "augment" yourself so much that mentally and physically that your persona is completely changed.
If we reached that point, instead of dealing with personal issues we could just modify our genetic structure instead of dealing with what life brings us.
Depends on what you mean by 'humanity'. When do we stop being compassionate, caring individuals? I'd say that has nothing to do with the particular set of genes that the human species carries.
Humanity, to me, is not just about caring about someone else.
This technology could grossly affect the position of the "haves" and "have nots". Obviously this technology will come with a price tag (financially and morally), and probably a hefty one. What happens when the people with the resources become "superhuman" in physical and mental abilities while those without the resources are left as imperfect? Would those who are imperfect become inferior? Would they lose rights to those who are genetically superior? Would genetically inferior people live in fear, intimidation, and distrust of genetically superior people? Will we need to have government quotas in the future to ensure that genetically inferior people can go to ivy league schools and get high profile good paying jobs (engineering, scientific, technical, political, etc.)? Will genetically superior people feel the need to take care of genetically inferior people like parents or big brother?
This is what I mean about losing our humanity. These are the types of social ramifications we will need to deal with.
Really, technology not about right and wrong. It's about power.
And history has proven that power corrupts.
How you use technology is what can be right or wrong. This topic will probably be debated, well probably forever...
It boils down to your sense of ethics, morality, and humanity. But let's face it; is there a right or wrong answer?
Once you start down the path to genetic augmentation where does it stop? Can you stop before you lose your humanity? Who can set that kind of precedent? I cant, nor would I want to.
If it were rendered obsolete, we would lose much in the study and pursuit of Christianity. The OT is not obsolete. God has never changed and never will. He is the same God in the NT as in the OT.
See my above post.
Your concept stems from the assumption that no one is under the influence of God's plan. If you are under the influence of God's plan (and let's face it, many think they aren't but we know they are) if you kick back and do nothing then you are executing God's plan. That's the way it has to be if God is always in control, there can be no exceptions, especially when you consider that God already knows what is to happen. How does he know? It's his plan, he is omnipotent.
Do you not think that Christ will kill and destroy? Ever read the book of Revelation? God's wrath pours out over the Earth and millions are killed. Christ himself will destroy the armies against him at Armageddon and destroy the city of Babylon once and for all. Sounds like Christ is going to bust some heads. Why? To destroy evil. Period.
I guess Lord Vader at this point would say to us "If you only knew the power of the dark side" LOL.
We both think we already know the outcome, God just has to reveal it to everyone else.
If you disregard the two points above than you disregard a good portion of the foundation of Christianity.
It wasnt a "turf" of any kind. It was an open forum where I noticed that people had the same questions you had, so I thought you would take interest in it. I wasnt trying to corner you in a room with 800 lb gorillas or Saddam's Republican Guard:)
They still exist, and probably will for some time to come.
Sure they exist, thanks to the allies.
I appreciate the points of view you brought up, perhaps we can both learn more here.
If you are Christian than this forum should interest you.
I know many Slashdotter's may not want to listen to religious lectures so fair warning to readers.
As you will note in the forums, probably the two most important things discussed are 1)God is always in control 2)God does not contradict himself.
So if God is always in control and always shaping the world and events towards his plan for the future than there is no need for debate, he is in control. If God doesnt contradict himself than all the times it is documented in the Bible when God told the Hebrews to wage war and not leave one enemey alive than why would war be wrong now, considering God is always in control?
It would probably be best to move this discussion to the forum I linked to above as others can help with your issues.
BTW, the commandment from the OT in the original Greek was "Thou shalt not murder", which is given its on definition seperate from kill.
As long as men populate the Earth there will always be confilct. As long as there is conflict you must be prepared to protect yourself.
If a nation with your philospohy was even able to exist, yours would be the first occupied by any agressor, hoping another nation or group of nations would come and liberate it.
Your philosphy assumes every man wants peace. Since every man has not wanted peace since the dawn of time, I see little reason to suspect man will want it in the future...
And no response to terrorist activities that kill innocents will only result in more dead innocents.
If you think that if we just say "sorry" and turn a blind eye and vow to never again prevent terrorist activities and shake hands on it, that the terrorists would just leave us alone than you don't know the religious convictions these people have. They have had these convictions since before Britian was in the Iron Age.
We are percieved as a threat beacuase we are not Islam. There religion calls all other religions false and evil. There god has demanded the destruciton of that evil. These people arent Sunday only church goers, their religion is everything to them and defines there existence.
My response is for the most part is here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=57953&cid=5585 054.
Don't just go along with what you see on PBS. "Think for yourself, schmuck!" --Robert Anton Wilson (written in letters of fire on the wall in front of a startled Moses in a painting described in Illuminatus)
HHmmm PBS presented an entire series about the last 35 years of the documented history of Saddam and Iraq which was composed by many international journalists, Iraqis, heads of state (Iraq, Jordan, UAE, US, Russia, Kuwait, etc.). That combined with all the worlds press over the last 12 years isn't good enough for someone to form an opinion on? Besides sitting next to all of the main players for the last 35 years, I don't see anything better for forming an opinion.
Just to reiterate my above linked post. The driving force behind hostile Islamic states is the hundreds of years of believing that all non-Islams are evil. And I don't mean SNL Dana Carvey evil. It is a religious conviction to destroy this evil they see. They do not barter with evil, they do not sign treaties with evil, and they will not spare evil. There god demands they destroy evil.
If you disagree try visiting the Arabic countries and then you'll realize how true these people are to their beliefs.
Are you confusing killing with murder? This could be read into deeply, but Ill just graze the surface here.
:D )
If I read your post correctly, than your saying no would should kill at whatever the consequences or cost are of not killing. What about the protection of human life? Is the not killing through war outweigh the threat of more killing in the future?
Were the American colonies wrong for killing for independence, fighting tyranny and oppression? (Brits need not answer
If killing and war is wrong than were all the allies wrong for rising up to protect themselves and each other against the Nazis?
Would a Jew have been wrong for killing a Nazi in self-defense, after all they were just trying to separate them right???
Is it wrong to kill a known terrorist who has killed in the past and is trying to do so again?
Is it wrong to fight a war with a dictator who does not seek peace but the death and destruction of all who are not with him, including his own civilians and party members?
Sorry but the end does USUALLY justify the means. If you think it doesn't, ask all the French who are still alive since WW2 and all the Jews who were persecuted by the Nazis, I think they would agree the ends justified the means. Or maybe the people of Kuwait? Perhaps we should of let Saddam continue to murder them and destroy their country?
Ever been to the Arabic countries? I have. Some of the Islam nations peoples have been raised to hate all non-Islamic people for hundreds of years. When I mean hate I don't mean they cut you off in traffic, they view non-Islamics as evil.
Maybe its harder for us "Westerners" to understand what "evil" is to these people but after what I have seen first-hand while there, I can tell you that they are very religiously committed and are willing to kill in order to defeat evil. They do not bargain with evil, they do not sign treaties with evil, and they do not spare evil.
It's impossible to have peace with those who don't want it. Does that mean we abandon peace? No. We should always strive for peace but we must be ready to face those who do not seek peace but seek to destroy.
I make no excuses for the American government, they have made mistakes in the past, both Democrats and Republicans, but what government has never acted unjustly?
I was referring to the government of one man, whose public history shows death and destruction for all that present a threat to his personal power. Whose power goes unchecked by his people who are ruled by fear and intimidation.
As most every man is fallible, this would most likely be the case in any goverment where one individual has all the power with no check and balance system to be held accountable to.
I agree, the only good thing about war is the end. But not just because it means people are no longer shooting at each other, but because USUALLY the outcome has left things better than when it started for the future i.e. England and France aren't speaking German right now.
Wars of this new century will not be as defined as ones of the past. Today's wars will probably be built on perceived responsibilities and morals. Of course morals differ from one person to another, so there will always be debate there.
Do we listen to our morals if they tell us to take a stand or should we turn a blind eye and let countries take care of themselves? If countries support terrorism should we act to prevent or just do damage control? Serious questions...glad I don't have to answer them for the country!
Actually it took hundreds of journalists documenting 35 years of death and destruction by Saddam, his party, and his regime to bring me to the conclusion that in order to prevent deaths of the future and prevent mistakes of the past from rising again that we must act today.
This post points back to my parent. Read and learn about what you're commenting about.
The UN imposed and enforced the sanctions.
The UN had the US as a major enforcer because of its military capabilities. It's one of the few counties would had the resources to help the UN enforce its imposed sanctions.
The US didn't kill half a million people with sanctions, or the UN. This regime did. It had the money from oil sales which was supposed to aid the people. Instead it went into the regime and its illegal activities (as noted by the UN). Let's keep the finger of blame in Iraq, where it belongs.