Subject:
|
Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 24 Sep 2002 18:51:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
364 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> My axe is pro-justice, not anti-US.
Inasmuch as your pro-justice axe only seems to be aimed at the U.S., I beg
to differ.
>
> > Axe-grinders opinions are generally speaking, not
> > to be trusted. They present only so much of the story as is convenient for
> > their cause.
>
> That is why I stick to fact, not opinion. I suggest you do the same.
How's this for a fact: you haven't addressed "They present only so much of
the story as is convenient for their cause." Claiming that you stick to
facts is NOT the same as telling the entire story. Since this would be
inconvenient to you, you do not mention it. Thank you for illustrating my
point!
> > > I'm not; democracy does not exist in Kuwait.
> >
> > Then why bring it up rather than whatever is your real point? Beyond the
> > axe mentioned above?
>
> My original point was why attack Iraq at the same time as supporting the
> misdeeds of others?
And it was answered by me: self-interest. This is the motivation for
virtually every country - why single out the U.S?
>
> >
> > > During Desert Storm this was
> > > pointed out. We were told it would exist after the war. It still does not.
> > > So, where is my inconsistently?
> >
> > So where is the United States' inconsistency then?
>
> See above.
Where? You criticize the U.S. for not supporting democracy, and then you
claim the United States is inconsistent for not supporting democracy. Make
up your mind. Either criticize it for not supporting democracy, or
critisize it for being inconsistent.
> >
> > > Now we have replaced
> > > one set of thugs with another set. In the process we have done some
> > > recruiting for OBL. Do you feel safer?
> >
> > Let's see, hmmmmmm, a terrorist organization left in place untouched and
> > given sanctuary by a foreign power, or topple them both but not quite get
> > all the cockroaches scurrying under rocks? Which scenario do I feel safer
> > under? This is a trick question, right?
> >
> > Okay, I won't beat about the bush (oooooooooo), you'd have to be a singular
> > moron to select "Leave terrorist organization in place when you have a world
> > mandate to do otherwise".
> >
> >
>
> There is more than one way to skin a cat.
You did not present an option at the time I answered, it was an either/or.
Nor, for that matter, do you present an option now. So let me reiterate: as
your question stands, you'd have to be a complete and utter moron to leave
the terrorist organization in place.
>
> > >
> > > > And I take it you weren't a
> > > > woman living in Afghanistan under the Taliban....
> > >
> > > Indeed not. Women there are treated little better today.
> >
> > Do you mean they are still not treated well? Of course. Are they treated
> > as badly? Not that I have seen. Perhaps you can direct me to some
> > (non-partisan) documentation.
> I read the other day that women are not allowed to sing in public…
Were they allowed to sing under the Taliban? Are all strictures placed on
women under the Taliban still there? Are more strictures placed on top of
those under the Taliban? See what I mean about telling half the story: you
give me one rather lame undocumented "fact", and make no comparison
contrasting the current regime with the old. You could be right, but who
can tell through all the self-righteousness. The point I am trying to make
(if too subtly, so I shall change gears) is that you are your own worst enemy.
> > > > Ohhhhhhhh, I see, Iraq has done nothing!
> > >
> > > Did I say that?
> >
> > Actually, yes, by implication. You need to make a comparison to define
> > something as a "better target" and you made none.
>
> I shall spell it out for you. Right now Iraq is a problem. But it is largely
> self contained and is managed without inflicting civilian deaths. There are
> other nations on the planet who are actively destabilising their region. Why
> not start with them?
You mean it is *currently* self-contained, and without us *contributing* to
the mounds of civilian deaths already inflicted on its own population.
Instead, we should attack our current supporters, without a world mandate,
betraying our alliances so that no one would ever enter into an alliance
with us again, to no direct gain for the U.S. If you wish to question those
alliances, sure, but asking why Iraq rather than the targets you mention is
just plain silly.
Of course, if you asked why bother with *anyone*, I'd be on your side!
>
> >
> > > {1} You asked if there was a better target - I showed you a few.
> >
> > No, you didn't. "Better" requires a comparison. You made none. Show me a
> > *better* target, not merely a good and deserving target.
>
> See above.
See above.
>
> >
> > > {1} The people of Iraq have "done nothing"... just like the people of
> > > Afghanistan had "done nothing".
> >
> > The "people" who "did nothing" were not the target of U.S. attacks in
> > Afghanistan.
>
> But 3000-5000 of them ended up dead.
1: You don't mention who actually killed them. 2: You do not contradict my
statement. 3: Even if the U.S. is solely responsible for 3000-5000 deaths,
that is a fantastically low number all considered, which would indicate that
the U.S. really wasn't targeting civilians.
>
> > The "people" who "did nothing" from Iraq that happened to be
> > in Kuwait when the "people" of Kuwait who had "done nothing" were getting
> > tortured, robbed and murdered were doing....what?
>
> In the message which started this thread Mike said: "Either way I am baffled
> to no end at how anyone can think liberating a people living under a
> dictatorship is a bad idea."
Let's isolate your next sentence.
> Now you want to bomb them rather than liberate
> them!
Who are you talking about? What you wrote is just a vague, self-righteous
nothing.
Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
61 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
|
|
|
|
