Subject:
|
Re: What about the first?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 18 Feb 2003 18:29:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1551 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
>
> > That controversial commercial about that guy filling up his SUV is dead
> > on--the truth hurts and you Yankees don't want to hear it.
>
> There ain't nothing you can say about Steinbrenner that can upset me.
> Unless of course, if you refer to this Dodger fan as a "Yankee". :-)
>
> > Come up with a
> > coherent foreign policy and if your gov't feels that there are 'rogue
> > nations', then you, as a citizen of your country, should support that by not
> > buying goods/services/whatever from these nations--guess where your oil
> > comes from?
>
> It shouldn't be too hard to guess where France's oil comes from, that's for
> sure. :-)
>
> > Guess who's funding these terrorist?
>
> Which terrorists? Al Qaeda? Are you implying that it's the US government?
> Iraqi (international) terrorists? Figment of Bush's imagination, so I don't
> see how we can be funding the non-existent.
>
> > Who gave the weapons to
> > these countries in the first place?
>
> "These" countries? Iraq? Who gave them weapons of mass destruction (who
> the hell came up with that term?)? Gas? Any evidence that it was the US?
> Nukes or radioactive material? Ummmmm, wasn't it France that gave Iraq that
> reactor (France, you know, that country that gets Iraq's oil and surprise,
> surprise, supports them)?
>
> If you mean conventional weapons: Bush's daddy (a decade ago)! Now, how
> John can scream about them dang liberal leftists being the problem, I don't
> know, but there it is!
>
> > It's the same as your drug
> > problem--you're funding both sides of the war on drugs as well--your kids
> > are buying and your police agencies are fighting the people who make the
> > stuff. You're pumping gas into your wasteful vehicles, funding these
> > countries, and your gov'ts fighting against them.
>
> I take it then, that Canadians aren't buying SUVs?
Canadians aren't hell-bent on going to war, and we at least try to have a
cohesive and responsible foreign policy, without the pretension that we do.
> >
> > But nope, you Yanks want your freedom to do as you please while everybody
> > else is the bad guy.
>
> Are you honestly saying that Saddam Hussein isn't a bad man? I mean, there
> are lots of reason not to be going to war with him that I think are
> perfectly legitimate, but this is not one of them. I think you only hurt
> your cause by taking that angle.
I have said elsewhere that Saddam is a bad man--a very very very bad man
(waggles finger like Seinfeld ep.) Here's something I learned in grade
school--two wrongs make a right? I tink it's a perfetly legitimate
arguement--we wants what we wants at the expense of others. Call it
complacency, call it 'don't throw my trash in my back yard', call it what
you will, but what it comes down to is selfish righteousness--'lookit
us--look how great we've become' at the continuing expense of those around you.
>
> >
> > I was at that peace rally in downtown Toronto on the weekend--supposedly
> > 100,000+ people. I was there--the people I saw weren't hippies and
> > beatniks, they were business people, students, professors, families--in
> > other words, people with possibly more than a semblance of
> > intelligent/rational thought--and they were there protesting this 'holy
> > war'. So then the question comes down to, 'if intelligent folks are against
> > this war, why are some for it?'
>
> I think your train of thought got derailed here and I'm not wholly sure what
> you intended. If you mean, the opponents of war come from all walks of
> life, which should give the proponents of war pause due to the broad-based
> opposition, yes, I agree (I'm out there protesting, too). If you mean that
> the intelligent exclusively are on the side of peace, then I think you are
> not going to win a lot of respect.
No, but I haven't heard a solid rational non-ulterior-laden motive from
those that want this war at all costs--which is my point. Comparing it to
Germany in the '30's? Talking about 'Axis of evil'? All the rest of the
props for supporting this war are built up like a house of cards, and all of
them have been refuted. Because SH is *bad* is the bottom line, and that's
why we must go to war? That doesn't cut it.
> >
> > And the only answer I come up with is 'cause those that want the war want
> > the war for *no* rational reason--they just want the war "'cause that's just
> > how it's always been done."
>
> Seems like another in a long line of straw man arguments.
Well, again, we're going to war 'cause that's how it's done. We don't want
to try anything else, we think it's the *only* way. It's history
repeating--call it a straw man all you want, you can't knock it down.
I'm saying that in this century that it's time to try something else.
>
>
> -->Bruce<--
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) Good for them, but that doesn't answer my question. :-) (...) But this was not the point you were making. How can you castigate the United States for its policy in regards to Iraq on the basis of the US trying to portray everyone as a bad man? (...) (22 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) There ain't nothing you can say about Steinbrenner that can upset me. Unless of course, if you refer to this Dodger fan as a "Yankee". :-) (...) It shouldn't be too hard to guess where France's oil comes from, that's for sure. :-) (...) Which (...) (22 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
91 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
|
|
|
|
