Subject:
|
Re: What about the first?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 18 Feb 2003 21:19:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1564 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> > 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.
Good for them, but that doesn't answer my question. :-)
>
> > >
> > > 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.
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? Is he a bad man? Yes? Then you
admit that particular argument is invalid.
>
> >
> > >
> > > 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.
A point that I don't think you established at all.
> 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.
Oh?
> Because SH is *bad* is the bottom line, and that's
> why we must go to war? That doesn't cut it.
I agree, but primarily because I don't see the good that would come from it,
not that it isn't worthy to see Saddam removed from power.
> > > 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.
You are repeating the same straw man argument.
> 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.
My point is that you are the one setting it up so that you can knock it down.
>
> I'm saying that in this century that it's time to try something else.
And I agree with this, we just differ on how to get to the same conclusion.
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) Again, I think it did--take a fine example of Cuba--name one spot where Canadians can go on vacations that Americans, by law, cannot? Guess which cigar Canadians can smoke that Americans, by law, cannot. Now I'll connect the dots-- We try to (...) (22 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) 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. (...) I have said elsewhere that Saddam is a bad man--a very very very bad man (waggles (...) (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
|
|
|
|
