Who is responsible for the Iraq War ?? Hussein, Bush, Blair or bin Laden ??

Oh look, ren is trying to provoke. In other news, water wet. I protested against this war several times, as it happens.

Yeah lets all play silly buggers and blame eachother, wars are about money , never about people and ideas , just follow the money , without these issues we would not be looking at eachother at all, we would not care , what do we care if people are treated like shit in other countries , look at the general attitude people have towards refugees " Ow i want to help but i dont want to give up my priviliges and what my parents have built " *pouty entitled face *. But they conveniently forget , someone had to pay for that ..and its very likely not just their parents!

To come to an agreement we must first accept how pety and puny we all are and start working together in building a foundation for peace , we need to get over ourselves and accept we are all in this together ! One planet , so much stupit ..i am getting annoyed her :laugh:

As a Jedi, one must do what will benefit the most people, and must prevent the deaths of as many as they can. Not even bin Laden or Hussein should have been killed. Life is the most important thing the Force has given us.

Silas Mercury wrote: As a Jedi, one must do what will benefit the most people, and must prevent the deaths of as many as they can. Not even bin Laden or Hussein should have been killed. Life is the most important thing the Force has given us.

I get that , but seeing we arent as organized yet and dont have any power or say in political matters and i am not even sure i want that , i am glad i can help the people in my village as Jedi as i can

tzb wrote: Questions of blame are pointless, and distract from the real problems we as a civilisation now face. The "players" here are now squarely "off the board", and not in a position to inflict this terrible tragedy on anyone else.

i disagree that the players are off the board

i disagree that identifying them would be pointless or distract from "the real problem"

they are the real problem lol

or a large part of it

so obviously i disagree that ignoring them is in any way a good idea

The important questions are - what do we do to end the conflict? How can we help those whose lives have been ruined by this war? And, crucially, how can we prevent this from happening again?

well it does stand to reason that to do this you would have to know why it was initiated to begin with, and by whom

how do you expect to end something if you dont actually understand what caused it?

much less prevent it from happening again?

Silas Mercury wrote: As a Jedi, one must do what will benefit the most people, and must prevent the deaths of as many as they can. Not even bin Laden or Hussein should have been killed. Life is the most important thing the Force has given us.

poor guy, 22 yrs old and still a virgin

so he goes on a shooting spree

whose life was important here, his?

or his victims?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVpcCpkF0Nk

MartaLina wrote: Yeah lets all play silly buggers and blame eachother, wars are about money , never about people and ideas , just follow the money , without these issues we would not be looking at eachother at all, we would not care , what do we care if people are treated like shit in other countries , look at the general attitude people have towards refugees " Ow i want to help but i dont want to give up my priviliges and what my parents have built " *pouty entitled face *. But they conveniently forget , someone had to pay for that ..and its very likely not just their parents!

We should be a bit more cautious here. Money is certainly a great motivator for many, but war is not always about money. In fact, they are more often started because of conflicting ideas and people who disagree. The money comes later. The U.S and French revolutions, The U.S. Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, Somalia... All of these conflicts stood to make a military/industrial complex money, but every one of them was centered around an ideological conflict first.

OB1Shinobi wrote:

Silas Mercury wrote: As a Jedi, one must do what will benefit the most people, and must prevent the deaths of as many as they can. Not even bin Laden or Hussein should have been killed. Life is the most important thing the Force has given us.

poor guy, 22 yrs old and still a virgin

so he goes on a shooting spree

whose life was important here, his?

or his victims?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVpcCpkF0Nk

Everyone's life. Those who are already dead cannot be saved. But if cops were to dart him and lock him up, they can sleep knowing that they saved at least one more life.

Silas Mercury wrote: Everyone's life. Those who are already dead cannot be saved. But if cops were to dart him and lock him up, they can sleep knowing that they saved at least one more life.

In the time the sedative takes to kick in he can kill or injure many others. Anything that works fast enough to matter will kill you. When the fecal matter hits the fan you can grab an umbrella and pray that you do not get hit or you can unplug the fan. When someone is taking the lives of innocent people whatever needs to be done to stop them should be done. And you do not have time to play games with less lethal options while people die. Life may be sacred but when someone else does not feel that way then you do what you must to protect others.

I will also add the Dalai Lama agrees with me

MadHatter wrote: And you do not have time to play games with less lethal options while people die. [...]

I will also add the Dalai Lama agrees with me

(emphasis mine)

The rest of that quote is, "Not at the head, where a fatal wound might result. But at some other body part, such as a leg." His Holiness was not exactly advocating one blow someone's head off, even when he or she poses a threat to someone else's life. Besides that, what does the current Dalai Lama have to do with anything other than (Tibetan) Buddhism? At the end of the day, he's just a person who has opinions like everyone else.

Actually France called on your BS, said they wouldn't take part in the warmongering and did everything to prevent it. Most countries in the world with an official stance on the issue chose not to support this aggression.

You know, it's not very constructive to call my arguments BS without providing evidence or a point of view that supports your counter. I followed the link of the map you gave, and it was difficult to find the site that explained what the colors meant, but I eventually found it on wikimedia commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:State_positions_Iraq_war.svg

Okay, orange are the countries that participated in the invasion of Iraq. Yellow were those in support of the invasion. Blue were those in opposition, and gray were those who took no stance. France indeed was one of those opposed. In fact, there was a particularly strong alliance between France and Germany in opposition to war, that argued that the United Nations should be allowed to complete their investigations and exploration of options first. Fair enough, but you have to admit, faith in the UN is not particularly high (nor is people's trust in their governments anymore), and there was plenty of opposition to the Iraq War among the British and American people.

Saddam Hussein did, however, claim to the world that he had massive weapons, and would later tell FBI investigators that he did so out of the concern that he would appear weak to Iran if he did not. Iraq and Iran had waged a war before in the 1980s, and he may have indeed been worried about an Iran invasion - this is a part of the world that has waged continuous religious and territorial wars for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. When much of the world believed Hussein's story (whether they were supportive of American and European intervention or not), should they have just let Iraq and its neighbors fight their fights with each other? Maybe.

Adi wrote:

MadHatter wrote: And you do not have time to play games with less lethal options while people die. [...]

I will also add the Dalai Lama agrees with me

(emphasis mine)

The rest of that quote is, "Not at the head, where a fatal wound might result. But at some other body part, such as a leg." His Holiness was not exactly advocating one blow someone's head off, even when he or she poses a threat to someone else's life. Besides that, what does the current Dalai Lama have to do with anything other than (Tibetan) Buddhism? At the end of the day, he's just a person who has opinions like everyone else.

Well Adi first of all I must ask have you ever fired a gun? Ever studied the effects of shot placement? Because anyone with training will tell you shooting the leg is A.) hard under pressure and worse with a target on the move B.) Shooting the leg increases the chance of a miss risking the lives of anyone that that miss may hit and risking your life if the person rushes you before you get back on target and finally C) the leg has a massive artery in it called the femoral artery which will kill you more surely then a shot center mass. Cops nor anyone with training do not aim for the head unless under very particular circumstances. All shots are aimed center mass which is the largest part of your target that you can see usually from the waist to the neck and shoulder to shoulder.

Finally what does his holiness have to do with it? Well he is a very wise man dedicated to peace and if he can see that lethal force is needed at times then anyone else should be able to.