Subject:
|
Re: From Reason: "It's all bad news - Chaos in occupied Iraq"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 26 May 2004 17:07:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1500 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
<snip>
> > 4. On what basis do you determine that the United States has the moral
> > authority to act against them?
>
> They acted against {us}. We have the right to defend ourselves.
When? If this is still about Iraq (and I didn't see in the conversation where
it strayed from Iraq), when did Iraq act against you? Again I ask, 'how many
Iraqi citizens were involved in 9/11? How many Saudis? And yet you use 9/11
and a default of a UN resolution as justification to invade.
For my money, still the biggest 'razzle dazzle, sleight of hand' trick in the
history of, well, history--Hey look over there! 9/11! Let's invade Iraq!!!
<snip>
> > You're presenting a false dilemma (again, a fallacy). You are asserting
> > that, because terrorists strike at American interests for reasons pertaining
> > to American action, terrorists must therefore strike at all nations for
> > reasons pertaining to American action.
>
> No, I am saying if our actions are the cause of terrorism against us, then
> how do you explain the actions of terrorists perpetrated upon other countries
> which have engaged in no provocation? The answer is that it is {not}
> anything we {do} that incenses these fanatics, merely that we {are}.
And I could say that invading countries under ill advised (at best) reasons,
having ill conceived foreign policies, and generally stating to the world "We
are really a nice bunch of caring compassionate folks over here--you just got a
few bad apples over there" (with regard to the prison fiasco) could, maybe,
possibly, incite more people towards actively showing their dislike towards the
USA.
<snip>
> > So we're justified in killing as many innocent civilians as we wish?
>
> No, merely pointing out that a numbers-game argument is meaningless.
Aren't you using Berg as a number? "Lookit what they did to him! We are
dealing with animals here!!"
<snip>
> >
> > Yet again, this is argument by assertion. {[Why}] do you assert that we
> > have the right to judge but Muslim extremists (presumably) do not?
>
> I base it on how [we] treat our fellow human beings and how {they} treat
> their fellow human beings. Our system is morally and ethically superior.
Compared with Iraq? Compared with Switzerland? Denmark? Morally and ethically
compared to whom? Your 'morally superior' country started a war of aggression
on a country that couldn't even get a plane off the ground to defend itself,
could barely launch a missle outside its borders. The invasion, under the guise
of 'get them before they get us'. How, exactly, could Iraq have gotten you?
Show me where you have the moral high ground on that one. Show me where this
war is justified. Moral? Not this time.
>
> > > > The point is that you're condemning terrorists for seeking to force the
> > > > world to accept their doctrine, but you praise Dubya for his steadfast
> > > > insistence that the world accept his doctrine.
> > >
> > > BINGO! YES! OF COURSE I AM! Because {their} doctrine is oppression and
> > > tyranny, and Bush's is [Freedom and Liberty]!
> >
> > Which Bush are you referring to? Dubya, who closed down a newspaper to
> > prevent free speech?
>
> There is a fine line between free speech and treason.
Kinda like White House sources revealing the name of a CIA operative. Kinda
like 'playing with the facts' to start a war of aggression. Treasonous? Thy
name is Dubya.
>
>
> > Dubya, whose administration actively suppresses dissent
> > and debate?
>
> Problem is, Dems are such poor losers that they don't know when enough is
> enough. It's pitiful that some Dems are {still} fuming about the 2000
> election! We {had} the debate on the war. We went to war. Why are we still
> debating whether we should have gone to war? Kerry, that hypocrite, voted to
> go to war! There would be a lot less suppression if there were more
> {civility}.
The debate on the war was based on the flawed evidence that the US
administration brought forth. If individuals were convinced to vote for this
war, it was due to the misinformation eminating from the administration.
Of course, 'who's more foolish? The fool or the fool who follows him?' ANd yet
the whining over other countries abstaining from following the fool. That's the
really good bit. Countries abstain from this fiasco and are deemed 'aiding the
terroists'.
>
> > Dubya, whose handlers confine protesters in "free speech" zones
> > to prevent them from being heard?
>
> Protesters? Or hate-spewing partisans who just want the president to look
> bad on the evening news?
"Hey Lewinski!" How much did the conservative party convince the people of the
US to spend on 'Oralgate' and 'whitewatergate', and how much was spent on the
investigation on 9/11? Yeah, your indignation would probably have a little more
value if it wasn't based on 'party lines'.
>
> > Bush has no interest in preserving freedom or liberty in the United States
> > or elsewhere.
>
> You know, it's comments like that wot cause unrest.
Yet I'll say it as well--as shown thus far in 4ish terms as president, Dubya
(and the rest of his administration) has no interest in preserving freedom or
liberty in the US of A, or anywhere else.
<snip>
> > they want to restrict the right to marry by altering the
> > US Constitution,
>
> That is only proposed to protect the institution of marriage from being
> [REDEFINED] by activists with their social agendas.
Damn those black people for wanting equal rights! Damn their social agendas!!
Redefining things!!!
20 years from now people are going to wonder why this was such an issue. Gays
married? What does it matter?
<snip>
> [JOHN]
>
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
163 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
