Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,649 Year: 4,906/9,624 Month: 254/427 Week: 0/64 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   where are the WMD?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1553 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 31 of 78 (39042)
05-05-2003 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by gene90
05-05-2003 7:57 PM


The very act of protesting the war is endorsing the regime of Saddam Hussein and prolonging the torture of the Iraqi people.
Do you challenge that view?
I'll challenge that view, because it's not wholly correct (fallacy of false alternatives). The very act of protesting the war, without providing a viable alternative to lower Saddam's threat level, is endorsing the regime of Saddam.
The simple act of opposing war doesn't mean you support Saddam. It simply means that you disagree that war is the best method to get rid of him. What were the alternatives? I never heard any workable ones, which is why I supported the war. Had better alternatives been presented I would have supported those. That wouldn't have made me a Saddam supporter, though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by gene90, posted 05-05-2003 7:57 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Mister Pamboli, posted 05-06-2003 2:47 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 38 by gene90, posted 05-06-2003 2:51 PM crashfrog has replied

Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7663 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 32 of 78 (39055)
05-06-2003 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by crashfrog
05-05-2003 10:20 PM


quote:
I'll challenge that view, because it's not wholly correct (fallacy of false alternatives). The very act of protesting the war, without providing a viable alternative to lower Saddam's threat level, is endorsing the regime of Saddam
No it's not. Opposing the war because you believe taking human life to be wrong under any and all circumstances is hardly endorsing Saddam.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by crashfrog, posted 05-05-2003 10:20 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by crashfrog, posted 05-06-2003 2:55 AM Mister Pamboli has replied
 Message 39 by gene90, posted 05-06-2003 2:56 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1553 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 33 of 78 (39056)
05-06-2003 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Mister Pamboli
05-06-2003 2:47 AM


Opposing the war because you believe taking human life to be wrong under any and all circumstances is hardly endorsing Saddam.
Well, if Saddam IS taking human life, and one has the power to do something about it and doesn't, isn't that contradictory to a moral stance against taking human life?
I mean, I just don't see how somebody could be a moral person and yet tolerate such a regime. That doesn't equate to war, I know, but I don't see how opposing war without a better idea isn't the same as supporting such a regime. Cuz aren't you basically saying "It may be bad, but it's better than the steps we'd need to take to improve things there."
Now, clearly, you're not fighting for Saddam, so you don't support his regime. But Saddam's regime was a problem. If not war, what was your solution? Just letting it happen? That doesn't seem like a moral alternative.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Mister Pamboli, posted 05-06-2003 2:47 AM Mister Pamboli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Mister Pamboli, posted 05-07-2003 2:48 AM crashfrog has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5906 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 34 of 78 (39082)
05-06-2003 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by gene90
05-05-2003 7:57 PM


gene90 writes:
Let's use some critical thinking...
Because the consequence of no war = more Saddam:
Anti-War = Pro-Saddam
The very act of protesting the war is endorsing the regime of Saddam Hussein and prolonging the torture of the Iraqi people.
Do you challenge that view?
I challenge that view. Let's start by reviewing that "critical thinking" of yours.
First of all, there was crashfrog's head on rebuttal...
crashfrog writes:
I'll challenge that view, because it's not wholly correct (fallacy of false alternatives). The very act of protesting the war, without providing a viable alternative to lower Saddam's threat level, is endorsing the regime of Saddam.
You have essentially committed the "stock dilemma" fallacy, a form of the fallacy of false alternatives. You must support war, or you must support Saddam. Wrong. There are alternatives short of going to war, which still allow one to be against Saddam.
But I think a more interesting rebuttal would be the reductio ad absurdum.
If you truly hold the logic you stated then you and Bush are two of the biggest pro-terrorists around.
First of all I was against Saddam (for his removal) as well as the Taliban and Al-Queda, according to your own statements, well before you or Bush. While I wanted something to be done about them, Bush let everything slide, not even exerting diplomatic pressure,until 9-11. (note: Bush was wholly against "nation building" until 9-11).
In fact, according to your own admission, Bush would likely not have removed the Taliban if they had turned over BinLaden. And according to Bush's own proclamations, if Saddam had handed over WMDs... ONLY LATER adding "or leave power"... Bush would have let Saddam walk away free as a bird. No retribution, no justice. Saddam may have even stayed in power to continue torturing people if he just got rid of those WMDs.
So that means Bush was "pro-Saddam" right up until Saddam refused to let go of the WMDs. Bush was certainly "pro-Taliban", and up until 9-11 he was even "pro-Al-Queda."
Remember this is your logic, not wanting war right now, so leaving someone or something in power, is tantamount to full support.
This also means you are calling Bush "pro-Jung il" as well. After all Bush has explained that diplomatic solutions can be had there, instead of military ones, which is EXACTLY what the anti-war movement was saying about Saddam. To you that means he is a traitorous dog looking to support that murderous and much more dangerous (than Iraq)regime.
He's also "pro-IRA terrorists". Not to mention "pro-anonymous African warlord".
Yes there is no backing out of that backwards logic of yours.
The reality is Reagan and Rumsfeld and even Bush Sr, actively armed Saddam. THEY supported him, and continued to do so right up until he invaded Kuwait. This was done against the will of many of those same anti-war people you are railing against now. Never forget that. If they had not empowered him in the first place, we would not be having to disempower him now.
Once in power, the question of how to deal with Saddam became a tough issue. I agree we had an opening with the first gulf war. Bush Sr did not take it out of a respect for world opinion and international law... making him "pro-Saddam"?
Since that window closed, almost all intelligence analysts from around the world were against a fullscale invasion. They were pro-Saddam? Bush Sr derided Jr for abandoning world support to attack Iraq... proving once more his pro-Saddam credentials?
And exactly what did you do during this entire time to oust Saddam? Or any other dictator or terrorist group? Sit in your chair and wave a flag? I guess that would make you a couch potato supporter of Saddam and Co. You certainly didn't help the cause.
One must destroy, or one supports.
Or there is an alternative point of view.
I stayed solidly opposed to Saddam as well as all of the others from well before Bush Jr entered office. However I do support the rule of international law. That was the tricky thing for me. Now that they had been empowered, how to remove or disempower these governments or organizations within the boundaries of international law?
You see, according to my logic, if you are willing to break international laws, and humanitarian conduct then you become just like those governments and organizations you are seeking to destroy.
This is where crashfrog made a mistake as well.
crashfrog writes:
Well, if Saddam IS taking human life, and one has the power to do something about it and doesn't, isn't that contradictory to a moral stance against taking human life?
Both of you have forgotten that the world is simply not this simple. There are competing issues which set precedents and moral boundaries. Without them, Saddam's actions were as justified as our own.
For example all of those people he killed were trying to invade, or create a civil war, or in some way harm Iraq (to Saddam's mind). He was of the mind that not to kill means to support. See the logical conclusion of this philosophy?
One would think on a site heavily dominated by Xtian theology people would understand that it is NOT contradictory to not kill in order to to stop someone else from killing. Hasn't anyone heard of the Amish? How about Christ? Are you people really saying these people would have been pro-Saddam for not wanting to kill many innocent people, just to get Saddam?
For the Amish, or their teacher Christ, or for secular types like me, there is an understanding that the ends do not justify the means, and allowing someone else to do something (whether through lack of power or moral boundaries) is not tantamount to doing it yourself. Especially if you support the disempowerment of that person within the moral boundaries that distinguishes you from them.
crashfrog writes:
If not war, what was your solution? Just letting it happen? That doesn't seem like a moral alternative.
Just letting what happen? Where did the sudden urgency come from to wipe out Saddam? Oh yes, those WMDs. This is another problem in all of this denunciation of anti-war protesters.
Bush's argument for war was not simply the ousting of Saddam Hussein. It was about WMDs and support for terrorist groups. The idea that it was about ousting Hussein to "free the people" only came later. Many anti-war people, like me, were against Bush's original arguments because war obviously would not solve the WMD or terrorist problem.
Intensive inspections were the best method to do this. Almost all intelligence analysts around the world agreed with this assessment. The results of the war appear to be bearing this out.
Which means Bush and people like gene90 have started shifting the argument to the existence of Saddam himself. And its so catchy people lose sight of the ONLY justification given AT THE TIME OF THE PROTESTS.
Okay, so let's say this war was always about defeating Saddam himself. That puts me back in the pickle I was mentioning earlier. With the US having supported him into power, against my wishes, and having missed the opportunity to remove him through a legitimate war (in the first gulf war), how can the world remove him without breaking vital rules of international law?
Unfortunately, containment and disempowerment may have been our only tools until he showed himself to be a greater threat. Contained so he could not spread his regime, and disempowerment (through carrots and sticks) to remove his will to inflict harm on his citizens, as well as decreasing his means to do so. Does that mean he would have continued hurting innocents? Yes. Does that mean we are guilty of allowing it to happen? No.
We would be doing the best we could within the legal and moral framework which separates lawful nations from rogue nations.
If you have a problem with that you can also think of the ridiculous liberal attacks against war. It is easy enough to point out that in any war one will always kill innocents. That is a simple fact of war. Thus some say to be for any war is to be for the killing of innocents, so pro-war always means pro-murder. This is equally fallacious as no war, means pro enemy.
As it is, we never finished our "good war" to beat Al-Queda and catch BinLaden. Bush undermined this wholly justified effort to wage a war against a man, contained and disempowered. He did this while other dictators are flourishing, using the same horrible methods of Saddam, and posing a much greater threat to the US than Iraq. He did this when we would have greater justification in facing those other countries.
Why, according to your own logic, was it necessary to go after Iraq, and in doing so support these other regimes? Most importantly the very organizations which planned 9-11?
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by gene90, posted 05-05-2003 7:57 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 05-06-2003 2:10 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 42 by gene90, posted 05-06-2003 3:33 PM Silent H has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1553 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 35 of 78 (39087)
05-06-2003 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Silent H
05-06-2003 1:04 PM


One would think on a site heavily dominated by Xtian theology people would understand that it is NOT contradictory to not kill in order to to stop someone else from killing. Hasn't anyone heard of the Amish? How about Christ? Are you people really saying these people would have been pro-Saddam for not wanting to kill many innocent people, just to get Saddam?
I wouldn't imply that the Amish are pro-Saddam, but unless they propose a better alternative than war, they're not really helping. I won't go so far as to say that "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem", but it is generally true that if you're not part of the solution, and you don't have a better idea, you're generally in the way.
Out of curiosity, how much violence have the Amish brought an end to? Last I checked, people were still shooting and raping each other in Pennsylvania...
I guess that's the problem I have with pacifism. Ultimately there are people who have committed to violence, and the only way to oppose them is the careful use of violence. That's why policemen carry guns. Does that require murder to stop murder? Sometimes it may have to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Silent H, posted 05-06-2003 1:04 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Silent H, posted 05-06-2003 7:01 PM crashfrog has replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3909 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 36 of 78 (39088)
05-06-2003 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by DBlevins
05-05-2003 1:15 AM


quote:
It is a travisty that we have not sent more help to them sooner.
Why? We are not *obligated* to help anyone outside our borders. That we do is a demonstration that we are a kindhearted people. But we could choose not to.
quote:
On the subject of Bush's propposed aid package, you might want to check up on how much money is actually going to those countries that need help and not to line the coffers of american companies.
Perhaps you mean, how much is going to American contractors?
My answer: ideally, all of it.
Not only does the United States have the right to decide whether or not to send aide outside its borders, the US has the right to determine how that aide is distributed. Because the ultimate source of that aide is coming out of the wallets of American citizens, which are wearing a little thin right now, as much of that as possible should go to American companies, which is then used to thicken the pocketbooks of investors and the common American worker.
Better to fill American coffers with American money than those of foreign corporations.
quote:
only 10% of the money is going to them, and the rest is going to be set up by a U.S. agency
Again, we reserve the right to distribute our aide however we please. With Bush that probably means a lot of abstinence education, which of course the left has a problem with.
quote:
that a majority of the money he is proposing will go to US pharmacutical companies.
Good.
quote:
They would lose money was the argument, though the pharmaceutical industry spends billions just in "sales promotions" to pharmacies.
That's a valid point. I agree that the gov't should try to find a way to make pharmaceuticals cheaper.
quote:
I'd like to respond more to the post but for now I need to get back to my finals studying.
You too huh? Good luck.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by DBlevins, posted 05-05-2003 1:15 AM DBlevins has not replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3909 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 37 of 78 (39089)
05-06-2003 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by crashfrog
05-05-2003 10:16 PM


quote:
Not to jump into a topic that's clearly beyond my years to speak of but...
Feel free, it's beyond mine...
quote:
As an aside, I thought you might be interested to know that a number of the 9/11 WTC victim's families have expressed exactly these sentiments
I know. But that doesn't particularly bother me. More than three thousand people died on 9/11. What does a family consist of? Five people? More? Less? You could generate an opinion pool as large as you wanted. I'm sure with enough people you could find at least one that was pro-al-Qaeda and thought 9/11 was a great thing. Granted you might have to visit funny farms to find one but I'm sure you could find just about any opinion any human being is likely to come up with somewhere in that pool.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by crashfrog, posted 05-05-2003 10:16 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by zephyr, posted 05-06-2003 3:15 PM gene90 has replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3909 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 38 of 78 (39090)
05-06-2003 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by crashfrog
05-05-2003 10:20 PM


quote:
I'll challenge that view, because it's not wholly correct (fallacy of false alternatives). The very act of protesting the war, without providing a viable alternative to lower Saddam's threat level, is endorsing the regime of Saddam.
I disagree that that fallacy applies, because as you pointed out, there were no alternatives. Saddam was offered asylum in various nations, he didn't go. I agree with you on the rest.
Oh sure Saddam and his sons might have died in a car accident next week and the next in line might have been a closest pro-democracy, pro-human rights (Dare I say it?) liberal.
But it's terribly unrealistic and the anti-war protestors marched their signs around with full knowledge that without the war Saddam would remain in power and would continue to do unspeakable things to the helpless Iraqi public.
This is hypocrisy because the Left usually claims to be pro-human rights, and even openly attacked Bush time and again for his support of the death penalty. But somehow they wanted to do anything they could to keep "nice guy" Saddam in power and Bush was the one that actually did something about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by crashfrog, posted 05-05-2003 10:20 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 05-06-2003 3:12 PM gene90 has replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3909 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 39 of 78 (39091)
05-06-2003 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Mister Pamboli
05-06-2003 2:47 AM


quote:
Opposing the war because you believe taking human life to be wrong under any and all circumstances is hardly endorsing Saddam.
It is when the government wants to go oust Saddam militarily because then you are opposed to a war that will result in Saddam's removal.
Because the consequence of the war is the ousting of Saddam and the consequence of no war is more Saddam, if you are anti-war then you are promoting Saddam. And if you are promoting Saddam, you are pro-Saddam, because you are deliberately, and consciously, promoting an action that will keep Saddam in power.
quote:
Opposing the war because you believe taking human life to be wrong under any and all circumstances is hardly endorsing Saddam
You did not say that you necessarily hold this view, Mr. Pamboli. You left that ambiguous. However, I wish to respond to it for the crowd and whoever therein that my hold that view:
Was it wrong for Lincoln to wage war against the Southern States to end slavery and reunite the Union? Or should he have capitulated after Bull Run I, ending the war with unconditional Southern sovereignty?
Would it have been morally right for the United States to sign a peace treaty with Hitler that allowed him to continue with his Final Solution?
Is it always wrong for an individidual to kill in self-defense? Or in the defense of others?
Had there been an air marshall on any of the 9/11 hijacked jets, would it have been wrong to use lethal force against the hijackers?
No, no, no, and no.
Killing is permissable when inaction brings about the greater evil.
And there are worse things in the world than war.
[This message has been edited by gene90, 05-06-2003]
[This message has been edited by gene90, 05-06-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Mister Pamboli, posted 05-06-2003 2:47 AM Mister Pamboli has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1553 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 40 of 78 (39092)
05-06-2003 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by gene90
05-06-2003 2:51 PM


This is hypocrisy because the Left usually claims to be pro-human rights, and even openly attacked Bush time and again for his support of the death penalty. But somehow they wanted to do anything they could to keep "nice guy" Saddam in power and Bush was the one that actually did something about it.
Yeah, I did think all the signs comparing Bush to Hitler, saying he was the terrorist, etc. were a little excessive (understatement). Last I checked, Bush never lowered anyone into a wood chipper. Has he made policy judgements that were, in my view and the views of others, rash and ill-considered? Sure. Is he still one of the "good guys"? I'd say so. Saddam definately isn't. A bit black-and-white, but some things are. But for a good guy, I wish Bush and his administration weren't so obviously in the pocket of big business (or at least acting like it.) I mean, the first thing they did in office was call the Justice Dept. dogs off Microsoft.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by gene90, posted 05-06-2003 2:51 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by gene90, posted 05-06-2003 3:48 PM crashfrog has not replied

zephyr
Member (Idle past 4636 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 41 of 78 (39093)
05-06-2003 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by gene90
05-06-2003 2:43 PM


WTC families
You're doing an excellent job of avoiding the point there.
It's one thing to support Al-Qaeda, and something completely different for the family of a victim to ask that the death of their kin not be cynically presented as an excuse for military actions whose connection thereto is tenuous at best. By mocking and dismissing the concerns of those families, you're saying it's acceptable to abuse the memory of that tragedy to justify the perpetration of many more.
It seems rather contradictory to cheapen the suffering of victims' families while still claiming 9-11 as a rallying cry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by gene90, posted 05-06-2003 2:43 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by gene90, posted 05-06-2003 3:36 PM zephyr has replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3909 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 42 of 78 (39094)
05-06-2003 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Silent H
05-06-2003 1:04 PM


quote:
You have essentially committed the "stock dilemma" fallacy, a form of the fallacy of false alternatives. You must support war, or you must support Saddam. Wrong. There are alternatives short of going to war, which still allow one to be against Saddam.
What are those alternatives, what is the the probability of success, and how long would it take?
If you remember, we tried alternatives to war. Twelve years ago sanctions were imposed. Saddam flourished while the people fell even further into poverty. Months ago Saddam was offered asylum. He refused. Bush gave him a 48 hour deadline. He still refused.
Alternatives failed. War succeeded.
By the way, I never saw any protestors on TV with signs presenting alternatives. They all said things like "no war" and "no blood for oil". The party line was that the point of the war was to obtain cheap oil, not to topple Saddam's regime. Therefore alternatives were not presented--the closest they came to actual alternatives were UN WMD inspections, which do nothing for human rights. The protestors were clearly happy just to let Saddam continue in power.
By the way, I believe the US tried for years to get rid of Castro without a full scale assault by American armed forces. Guess who's still running things down there?
quote:
First of all I was against Saddam (for his removal) as well as the Taliban and Al-Queda, according to your own statements, well before you or Bush.
Actually Holmes, I wanted Saddam gone in 1991, and in 1998.
I wanted the Taliban ousted when they began destroying artifacts (which is when I first heard of them) and I think we should have declared war against al-Qaeda immediately following the bombing of the Cole.
I was pro-war before Bush came into office.
quote:
In fact, according to your own admission, Bush would likely not have removed the Taliban if they had turned over BinLaden.
Probably not. I know Clinton would not have. But Clinton's bin Laden blunders are a topic for another time.
quote:
Remember this is your logic, not wanting war right now, so leaving someone or something in power, is tantamount to full support.
No actually that's not my definition. People who don't agree with Bush but don't try to persuade others aren't necessarily pro-Saddam. They're just not doing as much as they should to get rid of him (And I openly agree that neither Bush did enough nor did Clinton).
The people who make signs and go march, and worse block traffic, were actively supporting Saddam Hussein, just as the US once did.
quote:
Without them, Saddam's actions were as justified as our own.
Bush didn't make his opponets sit on glass bottles until their intestines were slashed into bleeding rags, holmes. You will never be able to compare a republic with a bill of rights and constitutional limits to Saddam's regime. To even try would be offensive but I'm not surprised that would do so.
quote:
Bush Sr did not take it out of a respect for world opinion and international law... making him "pro-Saddam"?
Perhaps so. Or maybe just a weak ruler who bowed to international pressure when he should not have. We don't know what he actually would have liked to have done.
Which makes this an interesting point. Do you admit that the primary reason Saddam was still in power is because of the UN?
quote:
One would think on a site heavily dominated by Xtian theology people
ROTFLMAO. I've been on this board a heck of a lot longer than you (are you even a member yet?) and it is not "dominated" by Christian theology. It has evolved into a big, continuous, anti-Christian smear. Last week somebody mentioned they were starting a prayer circle and there were two pages of personal abuse and good old fashioned religious hatred in response.
quote:
Hasn't anyone heard of the Amish?
I haven't heard of any Amish protests. They may not agree with war even in principle but they are not actively supporting dictators by opposing liberation.
quote:
How about Christ?
You speak for Christ?
quote:
Are you people really saying these people would have been pro-Saddam for not wanting to kill many innocent people, just to get Saddam?
No for the Amish because they aren't bothering anyone. No for Christ because he is not necessarily anti-war. (Lots of non-Christian members of the Left like to call him a warmonger, now you are trying
to make him a hippie? He was a liberal for his time but I *think* he would be a moderate who would want to liberate Iraq.)
By the way, I think if Saddam were allowed to stay in power, he would kill a heck of a lot more Iraqis deliberately than we did accidentally during the campaign.
quote:
Many anti-war people, like me, were against Bush's original arguments because war obviously would not solve the WMD or terrorist problem.
What? Surely you're kidding. You think that if American troops are in Iraq and there is a fledgling Iraqi democracy in power, Saddam is somehow going to keep his WMD program running full throttle there? And you think the terrorist camps would continue running? Please!
quote:
That is a simple fact of war. Thus some say to be for any war is to be for the killing of innocents, so pro-war always means pro-murder.
Actually I think that would be pro-manslaughter as it would not be deliberate.
Now tell me, do you think that Lincoln should not have fought against the Southern States? Do you think we should have signed a peace treaty with Hitler?
quote:
Why, according to your own logic, was it necessary to go after Iraq, and in doing so support these other regimes? Most importantly the very organizations which planned 9-11?

Actually, last I heard, we were still at war with al-Qaeda, rather than "supporting" them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Silent H, posted 05-06-2003 1:04 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Silent H, posted 05-07-2003 12:22 AM gene90 has not replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3909 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 43 of 78 (39096)
05-06-2003 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by zephyr
05-06-2003 3:15 PM


Re: WTC families
quote:
It's one thing to support Al-Qaeda, and something completely different for the family of a victim to ask that the death of their kin not be cynically presented as an excuse for military actions whose connection thereto is tenuous at best.
Wait a minute, are you saying that the invasion of Afghanistan was not linked to al-Qaeda?
And you seem to have overlooked my point: that you can probably find a family member of a 9/11 victim with any opinion humanly possible, if you look hard enough. I think 9/11 is a clear indicator that the US MUST be proactive in toppling threats. And when we topple dictators like Saddam and bring democracy to the Middle East, all the better.
[This message has been edited by gene90, 05-06-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by zephyr, posted 05-06-2003 3:15 PM zephyr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by zephyr, posted 05-07-2003 11:11 AM gene90 has not replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3909 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 44 of 78 (39099)
05-06-2003 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by crashfrog
05-06-2003 3:12 PM


I agree with your opinion on Bush. I don't worship the man or agree with *everything* he does. I'm sure any minute now he's going to try sneaking Creationism into public schools if he hasn't already been at it and I didn't know. I also remember the first controversey of his administration, the reduction in arsenic standards which I was rather concerned about. What about his handling of North Korea? I have problems with it. Notably his apparent double-standards with Iraq and what apparently started the whole problem, his termination of fuel-oil shipments in violation of a treaty we signed with them.
But so far he has toppled regimes that needed toppling? Without another Vietnam or the start of WWIII? Yes, and for that I am rather pleased.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 05-06-2003 3:12 PM crashfrog has not replied

compmage
Member (Idle past 5239 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 45 of 78 (39108)
05-06-2003 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by gene90
05-02-2003 7:05 PM


gene90 writes:
America doesn't have to send aide to Africa, we can divert funds anywhere we like because it is our money.
Yes, it is your money. You may do with it as you will. I was simply pointing out that those who died as a direct result of this war will most likely not be the only casualties.
However, consider this. Would I be a better person if I attacked an abusive husband in his own home, killing some of his family members in the process. Then spent money I would have used to feed, clothe and educate starving men, women and children in order to repair the damage I had done. Or would it be better the feed, clothe and educate the men, women and children, while searching for alternative solutions to the abusive husband?
------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by gene90, posted 05-02-2003 7:05 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by gene90, posted 05-06-2003 6:16 PM compmage has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024