06-02-2003 07:19									#1
	Caspar Weinberger-We Didn't Support Iraq v Iran Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

No, Caspar says we wanted a stalemate and didn't want Iran to defeat the invading Iraqis. How did you accomplish that goal, Caspar? BY SUPPORTING IRAQ!
Now Weinberger complains about Saddam invading other countries when they supported Iraq who invaded Iran? Notice how hypocrisy and dishonesty quickly becomes virtues for which ever party is in control?

	06-02-2003 07:31									#2
	Suffering from ads?

Worked out well, too. IIRC, Iran never did conquer Iraq. Irag never conquered Iran. Stalemate!

	06-02-2003 07:44									#3
	Tired of ads?

And about a million people died. So much for all this gnashing of teeth over Iraq invading other countries.

	06-02-2003 07:47									#4
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

We participated in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people by playing one side off the other and extending the war as long as possible. Go stalemate! Er, wait a minute.

	06-02-2003 07:48									#5
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker So much for all this gnashing of teeth over Iraq invading other countries.

Iran provoked that particular war IIRC.

	06-02-2003 08:15									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

And if one side had won, how many more would have died? I'm no Cap Weinberger apologist, believe me, but pitting Khomeini against Saddam Hussein is a no brainer.

	06-02-2003 08:35									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

If the war ended quickly, far less people would've died. We were every bit the warmonger Saddam or Ayatollah Khomeini had been.

	06-02-2003 08:50									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Ramo If the war ended quickly, far less people would've died. We were every bit the warmonger Saddam or Ayatollah Khomeini had been.

They were going to fight anyway. The leaders wanted it and their people wanted it. They hate each other, and America has nothing to do with it. A victory by either side might have served to destabilise the entire region. Given the nature of the two regimes, certainly the victor would have killed many, many people.

	06-02-2003 09:06									#9
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I seriously doubt that. The only ethnic cleansing I can recall either of the states participating in was against the Kurds.

	06-02-2003 09:13									#10
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Iran provoked that particular war IIRC.

Well, kinda. Iran was inciting the Shiites in southern Iraq. Both sides were inciting the Kurds in the other's territory. But Saddam's decision to invade came when his generals assured him that Iraq could conquer Iran in a matter of weeks.

	06-02-2003 10:20									#11
	Inflate your Upload Space

Well Casper is right. We wanted a stalemate. Any side winning would have been disasterous for US interests in the ME. I don't think we did anything wrong in that respect. Hell, if we told Saddam forcefully not to attack Kuwait, maybe he'd be a good partner in ME right now... food for thought.

	06-02-2003 10:23									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

My God how the moral relativism flies when globalism enters the picture. How would you feel if China succeeded in convincing Canada and Mexico to invade us leading to a decade long war where millions died and China was helping the invaders? Btw, I don't have a "smoking gun", but I believe Carter gave Iraq his blessing for Iraq's invasion.

	06-02-2003 10:25									#13
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Hell, if we told Saddam forcefully not to attack Kuwait, maybe he'd be a good partner in ME right now... food for thought.

Yup, Bush 1 got us into this mess with his weak message to Saddam before the invasion of Kuwait.

	06-02-2003 10:32									#14
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: My God how the moral relativism flies when globalism enters the picture.

I'm a moral relativist in all aspects, berz . So me being a moral relativist when globalism enters the picture is par for the course.

quote: How would you feel if China succeeded in convincing Canada and Mexico to invade us leading to a decade long war where millions died and China was helping the invaders?

I might not like it, but when I feel doesn't matter. If the future says it was moral and people feel it was moral then it is moral... especially if China is the world power and people think that is a good thing.

	06-02-2003 11:05									#15
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Imran - My comment about moral relativism was meant for static and his comment about stability justifying the immorality of playing 2 sides off against each other, but if you want to wear the label too, that's fine.

quote: I might not like it, but when I feel doesn't matter. If the future says it was moral and people feel it was moral then it is moral... especially if China is the world power and people think that is a good thing.

Why is your opinion about the immorality of that situation irrelevant while the opinions of others are relevant? I certainly wouldn't ask the invaders and Chinese if they considered their actions moral. If they turned my homeland into a warzone for their own globalist motives, I wouldn't look upon them as moral agents.

	06-02-2003 12:22									#16
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

god forbid america's interests are comprimised at the expense of a million lives

	06-02-2003 12:29									#17
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I believe the al-Shattab Waterway played a significant role in igniting hostilities between Iran and Iraq. The latter had to cede half of the waterway (or something like that) to the former, and it kind of ticked Iraq off.

Gatekeeper

	06-02-2003 13:14									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

"al-Shattab "

I think it's Shat-al-Arab

	06-02-2003 21:13									#19
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Now the US can support Pakistan's current military dictator only to deny ever supporting him when he too bites the hand that fed him....

	06-02-2003 21:33									#20
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Why is your opinion about the immorality of that situation irrelevant while the opinions of others are relevant?

Because it might not be a majoritarian view. Morals are democratic in nature. If 50%+1 agree that something is moral, it becomes moral. All sociatal morality is is a majority of people believing something is moral. Individual morality in this context is irrelvant.

	06-02-2003 21:39									#21
	Caspar Weinberger-We Didn't Support Iraq v Iran Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

We have always been at war with Eurasia. East Asia has always been our ally.

	06-02-2003 21:39									#22
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Why do you say morals are democratic in nature? Why is individual morality less relevant than a societal morality? Objectively, they are just as valid. I thought you said you were a moral relativist.

quote: Hell, if we told Saddam forcefully not to attack Kuwait, maybe he'd be a good partner in ME right now... food for thought.

I would prefer a ruthless dictator like Saddam to not be "a good partner" to my state.

	06-02-2003 21:44									#23
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Why do you say morals are democratic in nature? Why is individual morality less relevant than a societal morality? Objectively, they are just as valid.

Perhaps they are and perhaps they aren't. Social morality has more force behind it, because it is what is considered 'moral'

And yes, I am a moral relativist. No morality is inherantly better than another morality, though some definetly carry more weight.

	06-02-2003 21:47									#24
	Increase Your PM Length

Social morality is what societies consider moral. Individual morality is what individuals consider moral.

	06-02-2003 21:49									#25
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Yep... and social morality is simply what a majority of individual morality agrees with. The ones left behind are not immoral, they simply do not have any force behind their morality.

In being a morality relativist, one cannot ignore the relative weight of morality, and why some moralities win out in society.

	06-02-2003 21:56									#26
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

So I guess it depends on what your definition of "support" is

	06-02-2003 21:58									#27
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The ones left behind may have force behind them in the same way that societal morals have force behind them. A moral has authority only because people with authority enforce the moral. Someone with excessive authority (say, a very rich person) may very well choose to exercise his authority in enforcing a non-societal moral (say, extreme greed).

I don't see how I'm ignoring the relative weight of morality, etc.

	06-02-2003 21:59									#28
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: My God how the moral relativism flies when globalism enters the picture. I'm a moral relativist in all aspects, berz .

In all fairness the issue isn't yours or Berz moral code but the moral code of the people that makes the moral choice. If a person claims to stand on the side of a objective morality and turns to relativism whenever it suits them they are hypocrits. No one cares about you since you're not important.

	06-02-2003 22:38									#29
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: If a person claims to stand on the side of a objective morality and turns to relativism whenever it suits them they are hypocrits.

Basically what the US is doing right now- especially when you consider we were more than willing to look the other way when hussein was gassing the sh*t out the Kurds back in the late 80's.

But now he's the Great Satan, and preemptive slaughter is now necessary.

	07-02-2003 03:43									#30
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

So, Imran, slavery was presumably OK in a society where 51% of the citizens agreed with it, correct?