Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:
Before: not able to kill with impugnity. After: able to kill with impugnity. So while you may be right that they are responsible for their acts of killing, we are certainly responsible for our creating conditions that made that a live option.

---

That was true over three years ago during the initial campaign but what about now?

---

Quote:

---

Is it not reasonable to expect the Iraqis to at least start to rectify some of the conditions which allow these people the freedom to act? It's much easier to blame the Americans instead of rolling up their sleeves and begining to enact meaningful change themselves.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:
So we each bear 100% responsibility for the things that we do, and no one else can be blamed for the things that a free individual does? OK, you could be right about that. If that's the case, the U.S. bears 100% responsibility for creating the conditions in which these people have the freedom to act.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
This seems somewhat akin to blaming the carmaker because the driver drove too fast for conditions, lost control, and crashed.

---

Quote:

---

Also, by your "the U.S. bears 100% responsibility for creating the conditions in which these people have the freedom to act." theory, the U.S. bears total responsibility for every crime committed in the U.S. since the U.S. provides us all with the freedom to act.

---

Quote:

---

Individuals do have primary, if probably not 100%, responsibility for their actions.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:
The conditions have changed, and I think it's legitimate to ask what role the U.S. invasion had on those conditions.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Causal, why do you hate America?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Khyron:
why do you hate yourself?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Khyron, I think we're missing the point.
Let's join Geezer for some self-flagelation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:


All right, you two--don't make me have to say something coherent!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Khyron:
Somebody looking for on argument here on FFF.net!? Mr Isall, surely you jest!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:
The point that I'm making--that you keep trying to dodge around--is that where before there was relative calm and stability in Iraq (no death squads, no suicide bombings, etc), now there's violence and instability. The conditions have changed, and I think it's legitimate to ask what role the U.S. invasion had on those conditions.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
The U.S. does bear some responsibility, for failing to anticipate the level of sectarian unrest. Saddam bears some, for placing one sect in a superior position, practically guaranteeing sectional hatred. The British didn't help when they created the country in the first place. al-Queda probably had a hand in things as iswell.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Khyron:
But let's not forget the main reason for all the unrest: religion.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
No, Stupidity.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
"Come on guys, our great big imaginary friend says we have to kill those guys who have a different great big imaginary friend cause if we don't they'll kill us and rule the world!"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
[BThe British didn't help when they created the country in the first place.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fletch2:
We wanted the bit with the oil. Our bad....

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Mockery don't kill people, stupidity and intolerance does.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Malbadinlatin:
The British tried to civilize Iraq and stayed there from 1919 through 1961! The longer the Brits stayed, the more unstable the government became.

---