Subject:
|
Re: Who are we to judge?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 23 Sep 2001 11:08:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
365 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Stanley writes:
But in the context of the rest of the speech Bush made I think it
> is clear that he was saying that the *nations* who are with the terrorists
> are the ones who harbor, train, and fund them.
Well, here's where we get into how slippery and essentially empty the
president's rhetoric really is...
Nations are not things to themselves -- they are collections of people,
individual people banding together for a common political purpose. Look it
up in the dictionary.
I can't say the U.S. ever harbored Osama and the boys, but I can assert
without significant fear of refutation that the U.S., under Reagan and
through the CIA, trained and funded Osama's gang.
So actually, there are no real "us" and "them" categories as the President
might have wished -- there is only "us" and we are far from stainless.
People elsewhere in the world are not just tools for use in achieving our
political goals in the world (many of which I adamantly oppose anyway). The
Taliban probably wouldn't exist as it does today if we had simply aided the
Afghan people after their conflict with the Russians in the same manner we
aided the Japanese in rebuilding their country after WWII. Then again, I am
not particularly obsessed with making the world free for democracy, so I am
not sure why we cared about the conflict between Afghanistan and the USSR.
Most people aren't probably ready for self-rule, being sheep unable to think
for themselves. It is good for such people to have strong leaders spouting
empty rhetoric to help them in their times of trouble, otherwise they might
not know what to do with themselves.
New War? New Nation? No thanks...
...I'll stick with a Constitutional Democratic Republic. Y'all can have
whatever it is Bush is offering instead under the questionable War Powers.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Who are we to judge?
|
| (...) I don't often point out arrogance in others as I've very aware that I sometimes exhibit more than my own share of it. Not sure if you're pegging me as one of these sheep, although if you are I guess it doesn't bother me much, as I don't need (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Who are we to judge?
|
| I think in the context that this remark was made it was pretty clear what our President meant, and I think the answer to your question is pretty obvious. You're entitled to your opinion. Heck, I don't even have a problem if you or anyone else wants (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
19 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
