Zarqawi is dead...

[lynx]

My point was that western governments seem willing to condemn atrocities committed by Islamic fundamentalists, while at the same time condoning similar acts when perpetrated in the name of "democracy".

This attitude may be ok with you, it isn't ok with me and it certainly isn't ok with millions of Muslims. That was pretty obvious before our governments embarked on this ill-conceived war, yet they still chose to twist the evidence to suit their own purposes.

To suppose that they were unaware of the probable outcome is unbelievable, so one has to suspect that what has happened was their ultimate goal. Because of the terrain they were getting nowhere in Afghanistan so the solution was to cause instability in the Iraq and get the "enemy" to come to them. When the expected the influx of insurgents occured they could then pick off the leaders in actions such as this.

So if you want to apportion blame about who has caused the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people, and coalition troops, you need look no further than our own governments.

[Mr JP Fugley]

Personally I just hate the "it happened before argument" as a way of justifying what you do. If you follow that logic you can justify just about anything, including things like torture ffs.

I've just thought of a phrase "Let's get all medieval on their sorry asses." I can hear GW saying now.

[Mr JP Fugley]

My point was that western governments seem willing to condemn atrocities committed by Islamic fundamentalists, while at the same time condoning similar acts when perpetrated in the name of "democracy".

This attitude may be ok with you, it isn't ok with me and it certainly isn't ok with millions of Muslims. That was pretty obvious before our governments embarked on this ill-conceived war, yet they still chose to twist the evidence to suit their own purposes.

To suppose that they were unaware of the probable outcome is unbelievable, so one has to suspect that what has happened was their ultimate goal. Because of the terrain they were getting nowhere in Afghanistan so the solution was to cause instability in the Iraq and get the "enemy" to come to them. When the expected the influx of insurgents occured they could then pick off the leaders in actions such as this.

So if you want to apportion blame about who has caused the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people, and coalition troops, you need look no further than our own governments.

Do you feel that to have done nothing would have been a better option?

Please don't take that as some sort of challenge to your argument, it isn't. It is simply a question I wish to put to you, no more than that.

[j2k4]

My point was that western governments seem willing to condemn atrocities committed by Islamic fundamentalists, while at the same time condoning similar acts when perpetrated in the name of "democracy".

This attitude may be ok with you, it isn't ok with me and it certainly isn't ok with millions of Muslims. That was pretty obvious before our governments embarked on this ill-conceived war, yet they still chose to twist the evidence to suit their own purposes.

To suppose that they were unaware of the probable outcome is unbelievable, so one has to suspect that what has happened was their ultimate goal. Because of the terrain they were getting nowhere in Afghanistan so the solution was to cause instability in the Iraq and get the "enemy" to come to them. When the expected the influx of insurgents occured they could then pick off the leaders in actions such as this.

So if you want to apportion blame about who has caused the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people, and coalition troops, you need look no further than our own governments.

What we have here, then, is a very basic disagreement.

In today's world (a world I am somewhat at odds with), it would seem that the oppressive/repressive/regressive/aggressive Islamic-fundamentalist imperative is morally equivalent to Democracy.

I disagree.

I have problems with certain aspects of our foray into Iraq, but if the pre-war forecast was for a prolonged post-Saddam insurgency wherein terrorists would flood the country in order to fight us infidels, then fine; better there than here.

We can't negotiate them out of existence, the U.N. is totally ineffective, and we cannot abide their continued freedom to act as they have.

The poor Iraqis are suffering the effects of the cancer which has unfortunately chosen them as host, and if the terrorists fought according to Geneva rules, this would have long been over, but, hey, we're bound by the rules, right?

How's about a U.N. resolution that we take the gloves off and fight....fair?

My opinion, of course.

[Mr JP Fugley]

My point was that western governments seem willing to condemn atrocities committed by Islamic fundamentalists, while at the same time condoning similar acts when perpetrated in the name of "democracy".

This attitude may be ok with you, it isn't ok with me and it certainly isn't ok with millions of Muslims. That was pretty obvious before our governments embarked on this ill-conceived war, yet they still chose to twist the evidence to suit their own purposes.

To suppose that they were unaware of the probable outcome is unbelievable, so one has to suspect that what has happened was their ultimate goal. Because of the terrain they were getting nowhere in Afghanistan so the solution was to cause instability in the Iraq and get the "enemy" to come to them. When the expected the influx of insurgents occured they could then pick off the leaders in actions such as this.

So if you want to apportion blame about who has caused the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people, and coalition troops, you need look no further than our own governments.

What we have here, then, is a very basic disagreement.

In today's world (a world I am somewhat at odds with), it would seem that the oppressive/repressive/regressive/aggressive Islamic-fundamentalist imperative is morally equivalent to Democracy.

I disagree.

I have problems with certain aspects of our foray into Iraq, but if the pre-war forecast was for a prolonged post-Saddam insurgency wherein terrorists would flood the country in order to fight us infidels, then fine; better there than here.

We can't negotiate them out of existence, the U.N. is totally ineffective, and we cannot abide their continued freedom to act as they have.

The poor Iraqis are suffering the effects of the cancer which has unfortunately chosen them as host, and if the terrorists fought according to Geneva rules, this would have long been over, but, hey, we're bound by the rules, right?

How's about a U.N. resolution that we take the gloves off and fight....fair?

My opinion, of course.

Your constant return to this "they don't play by the rules, so we shouldn't either" really does sadden me.

If we choose to behave like them and fight in any way we want. If we disregard the rules, then what makes us different from them. Please don't say "they started it". I wouldn't expect it from my 13 year old and I don't expect it from you.

We make rules of conflict because, morally and ethically we think they are correct. If other people choose to ignore them then surely that is even more reason why we should not.

[Biggles]

Is this the moral relativism I have heard tell of?

[j2k4]

Your constant return to this "they don't play by the rules, so we shouldn't either" really does sadden me.

If we choose to behave like them and fight in any way we want. If we disregard the rules, then what makes us different from them. Please don't say "they started it". I wouldn't expect it from my 13 year old and I don't expect it from you.

We make rules of conflict because, morally and ethically we think they are correct. If other people choose to ignore them then surely that is even more reason why we should not.

To extract a nice, neat "they don't play by the rules, so we shouldn't either" sound-bite is to miss the point, and by a rather wide margin.

We are bound by the rules?

Fine; we'll play by them (and we are, by and large, and allowing for the normal human behavior which leads to an occasional cock-up).

They are not so obligated?

Again, fine.

We have chosen a fight we feel is necessary and that we must win.

Let us do the job; if you want to help, fine, if not, STFU...the U.N. is your mouthpiece and will speak for you.

We are bound to fight with one arm bound behind us and three fingers and a thumb hacked from the other hand, and all you can do is bitch.

Again, fine.

I'm still okay with Zarqawi being out of the picture, which was my original point.

[StephG]

Your constant return to this "they don't play by the rules, so we shouldn't either" really does sadden me.

If we choose to behave like them and fight in any way we want. If we disregard the rules, then what makes us different from them. Please don't say "they started it". I wouldn't expect it from my 13 year old and I don't expect it from you.

We make rules of conflict because, morally and ethically we think they are correct. If other people choose to ignore them then surely that is even more reason why we should not.

To extract a nice, neat "they don't play by the rules, so we shouldn't either" sound-bite is to miss the point, and by a rather wide margin.

We are bound by the rules?

Fine; we'll play by them (and we are, by and large, and allowing for the normal human behavior which leads to an occasional cock-up).

They are not so obligated?

Again, fine.

We have chosen a fight we feel is necessary and that we must win.

Let us do the job; if you want to help, fine, if not, STFU...the U.N. is your mouthpiece and will speak for you.

We are bound to fight with one arm bound behind us and three fingers and a thumb hacked from the other hand, and all you can do is bitch.

Again, fine.

I'm still okay with Zarqawi being out of the picture, which was my original point.

That was a whole load of words, totally devoid of a point.

The position you constantly return to is that they break the Geneva Convention, so why should people moan when we also break it? If you genuinely don't know the answer to that, then you really are no better than those you decry.

"Let us do the job; if you want to help, fine, if not, STFU...the U.N. is your mouthpiece and will speak for you."

What on Earth is that supposed to mean? Let me rephrase it "My way or the highway". I think not.

[Biggles]

I think it fair to say that Zarqawi chose to live and die by the sword, if not in Iraq then almost certainly elsewhere.

However, I am not convinced, and never have been, that the Iraqis deserved having their backyard used for an ideological battleground. An awful lot of innocent men, women and children have died at the hands of both sides in this struggle. I do not believe history will be kind to Bush, Blair or Bin Laden. (Saddam had already secured "git of the 1980s/90s award in the history books).

It is, therefore, perfectly reasonable to question the morality of the chosen battleground, nothwithstanding that there is a terrorist threat to counter. The latter was why the US had the full support of the UN to go after Bin Laden in Afghanistan and why there are Canadian, French, Russian and German troops assisting in that cause. The decision to turn Iraq into a front line was purely George Bush's call, not Bin Laden's. If we had concentrated in ensuring stability in Afghanistan and honouring the pledges of aid there then the Zarqawis would have headed to and been defeated in Afghanistan and we would not have our forces and resources split.

[StephG]

Is this the moral relativism I have heard tell of?

Probably