Subject:
|
Re: What about the first?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 18 Feb 2003 21:47:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1687 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> 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. :-)
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 have a coherent foreign policy. We ain't perfect by any stretch
of the imagination, but we try. Of course Canadians buy SUV's. But we're
not the ones wanting to go to war against one of the countries that supply
oil for our SUV's. Americans want their cake and blow up those that cooked it.
So you outlaw Cuban cigars and tourism to that country because your foreign
policy says so, but you'll take the oil from the countries that you want to
fight. That's just but one small example.
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > 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.
Dubya is a bad man. Cretien is a bad man. Blair is a bad man. I can line
up people that have said that these leaders have done very bad things to
their citizens, either thru their actions or inactions in the legislative
process.
Calling someone else 'bad' while saying we're 'good' is hypocritical. Is
all shades of 'gray'. In the time of the peace rally in Toronto on
Saturday, a few homeless people, in the very same town, died--and many more
across our country. Let's talk about US casualties during the same time due
to gun violence, homelessness, et al. Now I dunno how many citizens of Iraq
are dieing every hour under the leadership of Saddam, but taking our
attention and resources from where it is needed for our own countries and
diverting it halfway around the world to a country that doesn't threaten us
and saying that it's because the leader is a 'bad man' is, well, ludicrous
and moronic at best.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 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.
I don't have to establish that fact--Blix did it. He refuted most, if not
all of Powells claims of immediacy. Other experts have also stated their
views on the issues. If you want to invade a country, don't you think that
you have to convince me of why you have to, instead of me trying to show you
why you shouldn't?
> > 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?
Read above.
> > 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.
Again agreed--Saddam should do what's best for his country. But where do we
get off trying to enforce that on him? What gives us the right to do this
forcibly?
>
> > > > 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.
No, for it hasn't been knocked down yet so, obvious to me, it's not a straw
man. This whole straw man thing has always bugged me. It's like "Well, by
def'n a straw man arguement is easily refuted!", a la 'knocked down', and
folks keep on throwing it around, but the point is still sitting there...
not refuted... not knocked down. So if a straw man isn't knocked down, what
does that tell you? That maybe it isn't such an easy push-over after all?
> > 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.
Where? I don't want to knock it down--I believe it to be valid--when you
cut to the bottom of the page, in the history of violence, violence begets
violence--it's cyclical--"you're great grand ancestor killed my great grand
ancestor so I hate you and I'll kill you if given the opportunity." It's
the way it's been done, it's the way things seem to be don now, and it looks
as if it'll continue to be like this in the future. Well, I'd like a
change, please.
> > 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<--
K, we differ.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) Arrgg. This kind of moral equivalency is probably the most aggravating characteristic of the Left. To be unable to distinguish between being morally good and evil is *basic*! Dave, you sound silly when you call Bush or Blair "bad", but call (...) (22 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) "I take it then, that Canadians aren't buying SUVs?" If you are going to castigate Americans for something that Canadians are doing (wasting oil through self-indulgence), you aren't going to garner a lot of respect for whatever point you are (...) (22 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
