To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 19055
19054  |  19056
Subject: 
Re: What about the first?
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Tue, 18 Feb 2003 21:19:09 GMT
Viewed: 
1460 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 (...) (21 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 (...) (21 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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR