Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Scare_Crow

$2,500 is what an Iraqi civilian is worth

89 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Michelle

I don't believe in God...if I did, I would defy him to hold me responsible for what I had no control of.

But, that's off topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
aquatus1
It doesn't matter if it was directly a result of our bombs; the end result is the same. Those people are unjustly dead, and they have a voice in Heaven. Their innocent blood cries out to God. The shepherds in the United States have innocent blood on their hands. In the court of Heaven, as on the earth, only one witness speaks at a time.

And there goes any interest I had in that conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SnakeProphet
You have got to be kidding me. How is warfare more humane today than it was hundreds of years ago? Hundreds of years ago, armies would go through cities plundering them and murdering innocent people with no retribution against them. Today, every measure is taken to limit the amount of lives lost. Hell, according to the geneva conventions, we're supposed to provide ENEMY soldiers with medical assistance if they are wounded. Think they did that back in the roman ages?
You seem to think people were bloodthirsty savages, until "we" came. That's a pretty flawed perception of history. Actually, rebuilding your former enemy, that many here are so quick to praise, has been common practice for ages, just to give one example.

Warfare has, in terms of humaneness, never changed, and will never change. It is always the strategically best approach, and if that includes trying to limit the amount of lives lost, then so be it. But there's nothing humane about it.

You and aquatus appearently think it's actually a matter of choice. Pretty naive. WHAT do you think would happen, if you really were to carpet bomb them, go through cities plundering and murdering innocent people? You think the "result" would be better for the US than it is now?

aquatus' only mistake was to try to reason with close-minded individuals.

Yeah right, especially on a matter he knows is so important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Silver Thong

As far as war changing it has, Look at how the Europeans/Spanish took North America. Was the war against the First Nations/Mayans barbaric by nature? I would say yes. Did we as a European culture ever try and rebuild what we destroyed? NO. Did we not wipe out entire villages and cultures leaving no one alive,YES. Did we not come close to committing genocide in our greed for the promised land. We cared none for the people, "they" were considered savages. Settling north America was not pretty and the natives were nothing more then "pests". There was no mercy from the enemy, kill or be killed. Thats not how the world works anymore.

War in it's self stays the same, the matter of how the war is fought stays the same. The matter of how one may treat the enemy has. You will not find sweat box's, you will not see thousands starving in a death camp, you will not see gas chambers. Some culture's may try this but ours will not. It may happen but at least we can see that it is wrong. As we should see this war is wrong.

Back to main reason of the 3000 dead and counting. I can see the animosity in Iraq and countries that sympathies with Iraq's situation becoming a massive problem for the U.S. and other western nations. If you live in a country with an evil dictator now are you going to hope that the States decides to help overthrow your government and bring in "democracy" I think not. The people will most likely look at it as better to sleep with the devil you know then to sleep with the devil you don't. That was a figure of speech by the way, but you know what I mean. The U.S. better expect more resistance and many more deaths. Iran has watched what happened in Iraq and sure as sheit they don't want that to happen to them. They will fight ruthlessly and hell you might see a united Iraqi/Iran front.

Edited by The Silver Thong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scare_Crow
And there goes any interest I had in that conversation.

How can you discuss the value of a human life without discussing the Owner of that life? I'm just saying that the United States will answer to a higher power for its handling of this Iraq mess. Say what you will, but I say we will be held to account, and paying $2,500 for dead civilians is the surest way to p*** God off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bathory
And to call the US forces 'extra special nice' is just delousional!

Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse

Haditha killings - alleged murder of 24 civilians, including women and children (Under investigation)

Ishaqi incident - alleged murder of 11 civilians, including five children (Under investigation)

Hamadiya incident - alleged kidnapping and murder of an Iraqi man named Hashim Ibrahim Awad (Under investigation)

Mahmudiyah incident - alleged gang-rape and murder of a 14 year old girl, the murder of her parents and 7 year old sister. (Under investigation)

Mukaradeeb - alleged bombing and shooting of at least 42 civilians [134](Under investigation)

White phosphorus use in Iraq

aside from white phosphorus being completely legal

maybe you should look at things like the bombing of dresden, my lai massacre and other such attrocities

back in the old days a single event would kill more civilians than all the above mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1
How can you discuss the value of a human life without discussing the Owner of that life?

Because there is nothing to support the existance of any Owner, and even if there was, there is nothing to indicate that he values life as anything other than cheap.

Shall we wage war in His name? "Thou shall smite Alamek and all his people."

I'm just saying that the United States will answer to a higher power for its handling of this Iraq mess. Say what you will, but I say we will be held to account, and paying $2,500 for dead civilians is the surest way to p*** God off.

Why? Is God an accountant?

Look, you have your opinion on God. Great, good on you. But that is all they are. Opinions. There is an entire real world out there that functions on real principles, and your opinion means little or nothing to them. The average muslim doesn't give a darn what you think is going to happen to them in the afterlife. The average Iraqi, being told they are going to be given money because a relative of theirs died, will blink incomprehensively at the reason, and take the money to feed their children. God doesn't buy the groceries.

The only people who have a problem with the amount of money being dispersed is people who are more concerned with other people's spiritual needs than their material needs. Fine, go right ahead. That does not mean, in any way, shape, or form, that everyone has to worry about what you worry about. You do not have the right to tell others to worry about other things, and you certainly don't have the moral ground to claim they are doing their job incorrectly.

The simple, sad, matter of fact is that human lives can have prices placed on them. This sad truth has been known to insurance comapnies and lawyers for decades, and there are even tables and graphs to calculate the worth of a given human life. You don't like that, and that is certainly your option, but that doesn't give you the right to judge and condemn those who do what they do.

Personally, I get very nervous when people start using their gods to justify their claims. That has, historically, never worked out well for those who didn't believe the same things that these people believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar

It doesn't matter if it was directly a result of our bombs; the end result is the same. Those people are unjustly dead, and they have a voice in Heaven. Their innocent blood cries out to God. The shepherds in the United States have innocent blood on their hands. In the court of Heaven, as on the earth, only one witness speaks at a time.

Indeed it does matter. The end result is the same, but it is a lot cleaner and less painful. Civilians are no longer a target, and we're not allowed to use weapons which are deemed "unhumane" like white phosphorus. If the person isnt dead, we treat them medically. This is all new... they didnt do this in the past.

And who's "innocent" blood cries out to God? They're the enemy... Im having a hard time considering them "innocent"

You seem to think people were bloodthirsty savages, until "we" came.

Not at all. I do believe it was quite gradual.

That's a pretty flawed perception of history.

Really? You actually mean to tell me that they didnt pillage cities, rape women and kill men? Are you honestly telling me this?

Actually, rebuilding your former enemy, that many here are so quick to praise, has been common practice for ages, just to give one example.

Indeed... but pillaging was aswell... firebombing entire cities too... Rebuilding is afterwards... Im talking about during the war.

Its unfortunate that the only one example you do have is that one though.

Warfare has, in terms of humaneness, never changed, and will never change. It is always the strategically best approach, and if that includes trying to limit the amount of lives lost, then so be it.

Oh really? That is quite BS. Please explain to me, then, why we dont use nuclear/biological/chemical weapons? What about white phosphorus? Mines? Cluster bombs... Some times these are the best aproach strategically... Other times, the best approach strategically is to sacrifice the civilians, kill a few of them in order to get a high priced target because it might save more lives in the long run... but do you have any idea how much **EDIT** someone would get into for doing so?

**Mind the rules, Stellar.**

You and aquatus appearently think it's actually a matter of choice. Pretty naive. WHAT do you think would happen, if you really were to carpet bomb them, go through cities plundering and murdering innocent people? You think the "result" would be better for the US than it is now?

Pretty naive? Please... leave these things to those that know what they're talking about. Me and aquatus are using those as examples of less than humane warfare. Let me remind you of this, though... If the US did carpet bomb all of Iraq... the only internal problem they'd have would be repopulating the country afterwards. THey could just as well have bombed all of Iraq, killing massloads of civilians and enemy troops.. and went home without losing a single american life.

and paying $2,500 for dead civilians is the surest way to p*** God off.

Im not quite concerned with god.

Let me ask you though, what is your solution? Not paying them at all? Well, paying them 2500$ is better than nothing at all. You see... if they were to pay them ANYTHING, you could still play this same game.

Edited by aquatus1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scare_Crow
Im not quite concerned with god.

Let me ask you though, what is your solution? Not paying them at all? Well, paying them 2500$ is better than nothing at all. You see... if they were to pay them ANYTHING, you could still play this same game.

The solution is to spend the money to protect these people, to begin with. Our credibility is shot. We are worse than conquerors, because we only half conquer. This is a lame effort to ease the conscience of the United States. We don't owe these people anything, except Bush delivered to the heart of Baghdad. Let him ride around in one of those pope mobiles, and see what happens. It would be a fitting reminder to the next American President who tries to pull this stunt.

Edited by Scare_crow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1
The solution is to spend the money to protect these people, to begin with.

We 're spending a heck of lot more than that to protect these people. This is its own project, independant of the others.

Our credibility is shot. We are worse than conquerors, because we only half conquer. This is a lame effort to ease the conscience of the United States. We don't owe these people anything, except Bush delivered to the heart of Baghdad.
What sort of logic is this? We are half-conquerors? What half is missing? The part were we rape and pillage? Why the devil would we owe them our president? What possible reasoning do you have for anything that you have said here?

Let him ride around in one of those pope mobiles, and see what happens. It would be a fitting reminder to the next American President who tries to pull this stunt.

...

What?

You think any president doesn't know what would happen to him if he rode around in a country he invaded?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SnakeProphet
Really? You actually mean to tell me that they didnt pillage cities, rape women and kill men? Are you honestly telling me this?
Of course they did, not unlike our soldiers are doing now. It was not as common as you might think, certainly not officially approved common practice.

Indeed... but pillaging was aswell... firebombing entire cities too... Rebuilding is afterwards... Im talking about during the war.

Ah, no. Pillaging sure(which can actually be attributed to the army system, and not their humaneness or lack thereof), but not firebombing and killing civilians just for kicks. It was as common as it is now.

Its unfortunate that the only one example you do have is that one though.
You didn't ask for more, did you?

but do you have any idea how much **EDIT** someone would get into for doing so?

That's the whole point captain obvious. If this would get someone into so much**EDIT**, then it is obviously not the strategically best approach, is it? Winning a war is not about merely defeating your enemy any more, there are other factors that go with it. They've always applied, but never in the magnitude, that they do now. You can't just take two wars out of the historical context and compare them, it's comparing apples to oranges. That'd be like me saying, soldiers have no honor, because they don't engage the enemy one-on-one in close combat.

**Snake, you have already been warned about the use of foul language. Don't do it again.**

If the US did carpet bomb all of Iraq... the only internal problem they'd have would be repopulating the country afterwards. THey could just as well have bombed all of Iraq, killing massloads of civilians and enemy troops.. and went home without losing a single american life.
First, the result includes more than just the internal problems, and second, if you really believe that'd be their only internal problem, then you're out of your mind. They have a dozen internal problems JUST NOW, the situation would be several times worse if what I said was actually to happen.

Me and aquatus are using those as examples of less than humane warfare.

Sure, warfare nowadays IS (slightly) more humane. By chance. It wasn't made so on purpose.

Edited by aquatus1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar

The solution is to spend the money to protect these people, to begin with.

Why do you think so many soldiers are dying in Iraq to begin with!?

Our credibility is shot. We are worse than conquerors, because we only half conquer.

Make no mistake... Iraq WAS conquered.

Of course they did, not unlike our soldiers are doing now. It was not as common as you might think, certainly not officially approved common practice.

Oh it was much more common than it is now... And it was completely unlike what our soldiers are doing now. It doesnt matter if the raping and pillaging was officially approved or not, soldiers werent punished for it.

It was as common as it is now.

When's the last time a whole city was firebombed?

You didn't ask for more, did you?

Well I am now, so go ahead...

If this would get someone into so much**EDIT**, then it is obviously not the strategically best approach, is it?

:rolleyes: You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

The US could have firebombed all of Iraq, killed all the civilians. It would have been mission accomplished with no friendly casualties. That is not humane though, which is why there are *rules* set in place to keep it from happening... hence the reason wars today are more humane than previous ones.

Winning a war is not about merely defeating your enemy any more, there are other factors that go with it. They've always applied, but never in the magnitude, that they do now. You can't just take two wars out of the historical context and compare them, it's comparing apples to oranges.

Which is why I am not using two wars, but a variety of wars.

That'd be like me saying, soldiers have no honor, because they don't engage the enemy one-on-one in close combat.

What? Its nothing like saying that at all.

First, the result includes more than just the internal problems, and second, if you really believe that'd be their only internal problem, then you're out of your mind. They have a dozen internal problems JUST NOW, the situation would be several times worse if what I said was actually to happen.

How would it have been? Iraq would have been completely whiped out... the only people fighting US forces would then be those which come in from other countries... and then at that point, while the US is at it, they might aswell shoot any civilians at first sight anyway. Since we live in a more humane world today though, countries set rules in place to prevent the needless slaughter of civilians.

Sure, warfare nowadays IS (slightly) more humane.

WHat? Two posts ago you were claiming its not more humane at all... changing your song now,hmm?

By chance. It wasn't made so on purpose.

Oh no? Then what was the purpose? Hmm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
SnakeProphet
Oh it was much more common than it is now... And it was completely unlike what our soldiers are doing now. It doesnt matter if the raping and pillaging was officially approved or not, soldiers werent punished for it.
No, soldiers not.

It was more common, yes, but I say it again, not in that magnitude. It was NOT common practice, it was the exception, not the rule. The rule of course is, that it does happen in every war, but this rule hasn't changed, as you can see. In any case, the goal of warfare never has been pillaging or raping.

When's the last time a whole city was firebombed?

Not too long ago?

Well I am now, so go ahead...
How about iudicium dei?

The US could have firebombed all of Iraq, killed all the civilians. It would have been mission accomplished with no friendly casualties. That is not humane though, which is why there are *rules* set in place to keep it from happening... hence the reason wars today are more humane than previous ones.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm trying to tell you. Though your conclusion is false. The reason for the rules existence doesn't make the war any more humane.

Which is why I am not using two wars, but a variety of wars.
Doesn't matter. You're comparing wars, that have little in common.

How would it have been? Iraq would have been completely whiped out... the only people fighting US forces would then be those which come in from other countries... and then at that point, while the US is at it, they might aswell shoot any civilians at first sight anyway. Since we live in a more humane world today though, countries set rules in place to prevent the needless slaughter of civilians.

Yes, and BECAUSE the rules are there, it can't happen. Therefore it's not actually a choice.

WHat? Two posts ago you were claiming its not more humane at all... changing your song now,hmm?
War doesn't equal warfare. I'm talking about technology being more humane, if that's actually possible, but not the war itself.

Oh no? Then what was the purpose? Hmm?

No purpose? Does chance actually need any purpose?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar

No, soldiers not.

Soldiers not what?

It was more common, yes, but I say it again, not in that magnitude. It was NOT common practice, it was the exception, not the rule. The rule of course is, that it does happen in every war, but this rule hasn't changed, as you can see. In any case, the goal of warfare never has been pillaging or raping.

If that inhumane action was more common in the past, by any degree whatsoever, and is less common now, then war is more humane now!

Not too long ago?

Care to venture a date?

How about iudicium dei?

How about english?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm trying to tell you. Though your conclusion is false. The reason for the rules existence doesn't make the war any more humane.

Indeed it does. If rules exist which prevent inhumane acts during war, war is thus more humane than when the rule was not in place and those inhumane acts were common place.

Doesn't matter. You're comparing wars, that have little in common.

Warfighting is warfighting. The reason behind the war is irrelevant. And how do you know which wars Im comparing?

Yes, and BECAUSE the rules are there, it can't happen. Therefore it's not actually a choice.

The very fact that there are rules preventing the inhumane acts, which otherwise would happen, make modern wars more humane!

War doesn't equal warfare. I'm talking about technology being more humane, if that's actually possible, but not the war itself.

War is what uses the technology, and if the technology is more humane, it in turn makes the war more humane.

Plus, there are plenty of less-than-humane yet highly effective weapons which we are prevented from using.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.