When you say: "We should not be in Iraq"

[Superfly]

Are you more concerned with

1) The well-being of the Iraqi people
2) The safety of coalition troops

No "other" choice. Just want to see how people feel given these 2 choices.

Thanks!
Brian

[booksenkatz]

1. While I am obviously concerned about both

I am just a weensy bit more worried about the 2-year-olds and grandmothers that don't have tanks, guns and protective armor.

THEY.
DIDN'T.
DO.
ANYTHING.
TO.
US.

WE.
SHOULD.
NOT.
BE.
THERE.

[DarkSim]

2. The Iraqi people.

No Iraqis would have been harmed, had we not gone into Iraq.

[Superfly]

3. Likewise...no coalition troops would have been harmed

had we not gone into Iraq

[Mattforclark]

10. Tell that to Saddam's torture victims

None would have been harmed by us, (unless you count sanctions), but plenty of people would have certainly been harmed.

[DarkPhenyx]

14. So it was either invade and kill them ourselves or...

...leave Sadam in power to do it for us? Black and white thinking is what the adminsitration used to get us into this mess. There were, and still are, other solutions.

[Mattforclark]

19. Not at all

Yes, if Saddam stayed in power he would have killed people. If we had continued with containment he would have killed people. That's not black and white thinking, that's pretty stark and undeniable reality.

Of course, as you put it, "there were, and still are, other solutions," but none of those solutions involved Saddam Hussein deciding to start respecting human rights.

[DarkPhenyx]

26. Again, you are denying...

...other solutions. I think it is also a fairly stark reality that more people have died under our control than would have died under Saddam in the same period. Still more will die as an indirect result of our actions. The world as a whole is less safe, not more.

Now, as I said. There were and still are other solutions.

[Mattforclark]

28. No

I'm not denying "other solutions." I am denying that "other solutions" would have stopped people being killed by secret police and so on. If you know of a solution that could have plausibly caused Saddam Hussein to suddenly start respecting human rights, please let me know what it is.

"I think it is also a fairly stark reality that more people have died under our control than would have died under Saddam in the same period."

Very probably, in the same period. But it depends on what happens in the future as to whether there will be any utilitarian benefit. To me, Utilitarian benefit isn't easily apparent in either direction.

[DarkPhenyx]

30. look at the general trends, ok?

Not just Iraq but in the region.

[Mattforclark]

36. What do you mean???

Could you be more specific?

What other solutions would have stopped Saddam Hussein from killing people?

[DarkPhenyx]

39. Besdies his removal from power?

Probably nothing. :shrug: However with the marked increase of dead Iraqis as a direct and indirect result of our actions in the country, factoring in the high probability of the situation devolving further and prehaps entering into a civil war phase, and the vast increased terrorism threat worldwide, what do you think the better of the two solutions, you seem to believe were are only options were, would have been? Just curious. I'm wondering if you think that making things worse for everyone is a justifiable ends.

[LeahMira]

40. Not just the invasion.

No Iraqis would have been harmed, had we not gone into Iraq.

Twelve years of sanctions harmed them already. The Gulf War destroyed much of their roads, water supply facilities and such, and the sanctions helped prevent them from rebuilding.

[mmonk]

4. I'm not into judging or comparing the worth of lives taken

so I can't participate.

[Superfly]

5. Not asking you to compare the "worth of lives taken"

just asking who you care more about.

[mmonk]

7. everyone

[DarkPhenyx]

9. Why do we have to care about one more than the other?

We can't be equally concerned about both sides?

[Superfly]

15. Yes you can, but not in this poll.

[DarkPhenyx]

17. Then your poll is poorly designed.

IMHO none of us should be answering with anything except more and different answer than the ones you provided. One might begin thinking you set this up just to give the idiotic Freepers something to point at and say "See! Those stupid DUh's care more about some ragheads than our own heroic men and women. They are all terrorists over there." Of course we don't do things like setting up our own people.

[Superfly]

18. Don't like the poll, don't vote in it.

Not forcing you to do anything. A or B. That's it.

[DarkPhenyx]

27. or C, or D, or E.

"You are either for us or against us." Damn, that sounds familier to me somehow.

I will remain equally concerned for all life. Believing anything else is immoral.

[Superfly]

29. Well, good for you.

And, it is not immoral to hold some life in higher regard than others. That's just a different morality than yours.

[DarkPhenyx]

31. No, it's immoral.

It's also hubris. Or are you willing to conceed an equality of morality with al'Queda. I've got a lot of good money taht will say they think some life is far more worthy of "high regard" than American lives.

[Jim Warren]

33. We're talking human beings here. right?

"it is not immoral to hold some life in higher regard than others"

Now this is starting to creep me out.

[Superfly]

35. DP did not qualify what kind of life he was talking about...

apparently it is immoral to hold humans in higher regard than amoeba.

[DarkPhenyx]

41. Now you are allowing your "arguements"...

...to devolve to the level of the frivilous and stupid. Ya know what that means don't you?

I WIN!

[booksenkatz]

12. There's a distinction

I care about both groups equally because they're all human beings; but I am more concerned about untrained, unarmed children and grandmothers finding themselves, unasked, on a battlefield with well-trained, well-armed young men. The young men can take pretty good care of themselves under those circumstances, comparitively speaking. You asked which group I was more concerned about. I think there is a distinction, at least in the way I interpreted/voted in your poll.

[Jacobin]

6. No good answer provided in your poll

If we hadn't invaded that country illegally our troops wouldn't be getting shot and we wouldn't be shooting Iraqis.

False dilemma is posed by your poll

[DarkPhenyx]

8. The safety of the entire world.

When I say it I am meaning that we never should have invaded in the first place. Now that we are there however we don't have a choice but to stick it out till we can fix things or come up with a better solution. Unfortunately this will result in more deaths on all sides, including outside the theatre in question.

[Mattforclark]

11. There are more Iraqi people than coalition troops, therefore

the Iraqi people.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Superfly]

16. No it is not.

This is an honest question, no need to alert.

[sadiesworld]

20. I am more concerned with the safety of our troops.

Although the Iraqi deaths are horrible, and given far too little coverage by our whore media, it really isn't a difficult call for me.

[Q]

21. Flame bait poll...

...we've all seen them before. This is not about whether we're 'concerned' about Iraqis vs the troops. It's about the illegality of the war and GWB* as a war criminal.

- Have we forgotten that it has been PROVEN that Bush* & Company LIED us into invading Iraq? Asking silly 'poll' questions like this is nothing more than a distraction from making the Bush* WH accountable for THEIR actions.

[Superfly]

22. No, it is not.

Honest question, that's it.

[Mattforclark]

25. That's crazy

"It's about the illegality of the war and GWB* as a war criminal."

The poll has nothing to do with whether one thinks the war is "illegal" or whether Bush is a "war criminal."

[Q]

37. I said this poll is a distraction from that FACT...

- I would question the motivation of someone who would ask such a stupid poll question. I believe the question is meant to divide DU and give ammunition to our political enemies.

- No one should be dying in an unnecessary war.

[Mattforclark]

42. More a matter of opinion than fact

"I would question the motivation of someone who would ask such a stupid poll question. I believe the question is meant to divide DU and give ammunition to our political enemies."

I would put forward that implying that you have to think the war is "illegal" to be against it, or that "illegality" is a fact does more to "divide DU and give ammo to our political enemies." Wesley Clark didn't think it was "illegal," but was still against it, and I don't think it's "illegal," but was also against it.

"No one should be dying in an unnecessary war."

Can't argue with that.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Superfly]

24. No, it is not.

[welshTerrier2]

32. Can't Answer This

given the choices, i cannot, and did not, vote in your poll ...

i see no basis for valuing one group of lives above the other. there are no "bad guys" here.

we should not be in Iraq because our culture and our country does not have any right to impose its will on any other culture or country. this is especially true because i believe we are not imposing our will to create democracy in Iraq ... i believe bush invaded Iraq to cater to an elite group of people for money and profit ... the altruism of building a democracy is a sham ...

[Skittles]

34. sorry, my concern is for both

THAT is what makes me a Democrat.

[Flubadubya]

38. Ditto here Skittles...

We have no business being in Iraq, period. Were we not there, we should have no concerns whatsoever, be it for our troops or for the Iraqis.

Being primarily a "citizen of the universe" I see no distinction between our troops and the Iraqi citizens. They all have a right to be on this planet equally, and they all have families who love them.

This is NOT a fair poll... reminds me of something the Pugs would pull.

[mmonk]

43. The well being of only two choices

ignores the reality of others who's well being is, has been, and will be affected. In addition to US troops and Iraqi people, there are journalists, aid workers, mercenaries, missionaries, and victims of terrorism resulting from this decision of this particular war in Iraq. The non-living casualties are US credibility in the world, international co-operation, US military strength, and in alot of respects, the truth. Therefore, I can't be sucked into this poll.