Subject:
|
Re: Help me with the math
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 10 Sep 2004 04:43:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1035 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
| |
| |
Do you feel that the Dubya administration should face no accountability for
its ineptitude?
|
|
| |
I honestly believe that, given more time, SH would have assisted terrorists
to unleash a WMD on US soil.
|
That’s nice, but I notice that you didn’t answer my question. Should anyone
in the Dubya adminstration be held accountable for inciting a war based on
false and/or culpably erroneous information?
|
I believe that military intervention was warranted, given Rez 1441 and SH’s
complete and incomprehensible stupidity about not coming clean WRT WMDs. If you
are searching for a smoking idiot, surely it is he!
| |
And in any case, your honest belief is irrelevant, as is Dubya’s. “Belief”
simply isn’t sufficient justification to murder 1,000 soldiers and ~12,000
Iraqis. Let’s say that I honestly believe that the guy in the cube across
from me will kill me tomorrow unless I kill him today--am I therefore
justified in murdering him pre-emptively?
|
Hmmm. What is your evidence? Did he have a pic of you on his bulletin board
with a pin stuck in your forehead? Did you overhear a phone conversation he had
with tech support guy from Smith & Wesson? Give me some good evidence and
Johnnie Cochran to spin it, and I’ll give you freedom my man.
| |
| |
Why are we still meeting resistance in Iraq?
|
Because we’ve killed thousands of civilians and because we’re perceived as an
occupying, anti-Islamic military force.
| |
You couldn’t be more wrong. That is not the perception of the overwhelming
majority of Iraqis about our presence there. You have been deceived by
biased and unconscionable media reports.
|
Are you kidding? You yourself asked why the US military is meeting
resistance, and I answered that the resistance is in response to the
thousands of murders that the US military has committed.
|
By groups who do not represent the will of the vast majority of Iraqis.
| |
What reason do you
propose as an alternative?
|
They are factions who don’t want Democracy in Iraq.
| |
Do the fighters in Iraq strike against US targets
because those fighters hate my freedom?
And anyway, most polls I’ve read show that an overwhelming majority of Iraqis
consider the US military to be an unwelcome occupying force, and a similar
majority flatly disapproves of the US presence there. I’ll provide a citation
once you have provided yours.
|
But the polls also show that they are all glad SH is gone.
| |
| |
| |
In the unlikiely event that the Iraqis actually gain freedom as well, then
so much the better. But their “freedom” is hardly the reason that the US
invaded, and it’s hardly the reason that the US is still there.
|
|
|
And it is hardly to steal their oil.
| |
| |
Well I strongly disagree. We are only establishing a strong military
presence there until Iraq can do that herself. Then we won’t be needed. Do
you disagree that we’d leave tomorrow if a free Iraq had the ability to
defend herself against insurgents?
|
Absolutely I disagree. The US is in the process of building the largest US
embassy in the world in Iraq. Do you suggest that the US will abandon this
huge embassy once the insurgents have been quelled?
|
Why would we abandon our embassy? We have embassies everywhere! What does
building a big embassy prove?
| |
| |
We attacked to remove SH’s regime-- that regime is history! So why is there
still fighting? Because of Islamic Fascists who don’t want Freedom! They
want pukes like SH in power around the world who are sympathetic to their
cause who will assist them in their fight against the West.
|
If we finally succeed in forcing the Iraqi citizens to accept the US brand of
freedom, and if the Iraqis freely choose to install a brutal, fundamentalist
dictator who hates the West, will we honor their choice?
| |
First, it mostly certainly won’t be our “brand of freedom”. They will create
their own. Your second point is moot, because it is patently ridiculous and
borderline racist.
|
I’m calling you out--explain to me exactly why the second point is moot, how
it is ridiculous, and why it is racist. If you will not do this, I must
require you to withdraw this objection.
|
Because it is so ludicrous that it would never happen. Explain to me why a
society would willingly choose to be ruled by a hateful dictator. To postulate
as such is nonsensical and contentious. To suppose that any culture would do
such a preposterous thing implies that the society in question is so backward
and ignorant that they can’t even competently select a leader. The Iraqis are
not stupid, backwater hicks who have no idea what they are doing. Furthermore,
I called the second point “borderline” racist, not “racist”. I give the Iraqis
more credit than that, and I happen to have found your hypothetical demeaning to
them.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Help me with the math
|
| (...) Dubya can't on one hand claim that the UN is irrelevant while on the other hand condemning Saddam for disobeying the UN's resolutions. Additionally, it's not up to Bush to enforce the UN's resolutions; do you propose that the US act as the (...) (20 years ago, 10-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Help me with the math
|
| (...) That’s nice, but I notice that you didn’t answer my question. Should anyone in the Dubya adminstration be held accountable for inciting a war based on false and/or culpably erroneous information? And in any case, your honest belief is (...) (20 years ago, 9-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
57 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
|
|
|
|
