Subject:
|
Re: From Reason: "It's all bad news - Chaos in occupied Iraq"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 26 May 2004 18:13:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1346 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
|
| |
Aren’t you using Berg as a number? “Lookit what they did to him! We are
dealing with animals here!!”
|
A number? No. An example of their cruel, savage barbarism? Yes. War is
different. Basically in war, you are saying to your enemy, “Surrender to us, or
we probably will kill you.” Even at any time in war, surrender is an option and
the killing ends. There are rules, however strange that may sound. Then there
is the sadistic, ritualistic butchering of innocent people. It is inhuman,
uncivil, and primitive. It is morally wrong.
| |
| |
their fellow human beings. Our system is morally and ethically superior.
|
Compared with Iraq? Compared with Switzerland? Denmark? Morally and
ethically compared to whom?
|
Compared to the vision of Wahabi Muslim extremists.
| |
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.
|
You are very confused about this conflict. We called for the self-deposition of
SH. He refused and we invaded to force him to leave power. That is all. We
deposed him, liberating the Iraqi people from his oppression, and are assisting
the Iraqi people to form their own free and democratic country. How much higher
ground is there morally? Well yeah, there have been some mistakes, but we are
not perfect and our intentions were always good. You are so partisan and
blinkered that you can’t even admit the enormous good that will come as a result
of this liberation. You better look at yourself.
(snip)
| |
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.
|
What about the British? What about the whole world? Playing the “hindsight is
20/20” is either ignorant or disengenuous.
| |
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’.
|
No, they are deemed as ostriches with their heads in the sand.
| |
| |
| |
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’.
|
Clinton was a coward. He should have stood up and said, “yeah, well, so what,
it’s my private life and none of your business. Instead he tried to cover it up
and obfuscate. Take responsibility. At least I would have respected him for
that.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Believe what you will, but realize your bigotry has rendered your perception
obtuse.
| |
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!!!
|
Careful. Many blacks are deeply offended at the equivocation of gay rights
and civil rights. I frankly agree with them.
| |
20 years from now people are going to wonder why this was such an issue. Gays
married? What does it matter?
|
Wanna bet? Perhaps I will have to time debate this issue further at a later
time, but I will just say that you are not thinking through the deep social
ramifications of equating same sex unions with opposite ones. Short answer: men
and women are not equal. That’s not to say that they don’t have equal rights,
it’s to say that they aren’t equal. It’s so painfully obvious and yet so
vehemently denied by the Left, because it doesn’t fit into their agenda.
JOHN
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
