ok, maybe everyone should just ignore my post. it was more just a grand simplification of things using views from both side to make a point. but the real purpose was just to use that "oi to the world and everybody wins" line. perhaps this is why i don't enter most of these political threads. we get oil wasn't exactly how i feel and my world cop views may be expressed later, i don't know. so carry on.
Who is this Trader Jorge fellow I keep hearing about, and why am I being compared to him again? Does he also ask you probing questions that you refuse to answer? Seriously, if you don't like being questioned, then you don't like debate. If this is the case, why do you participate in political debate threads?
Hey, f-4-p, just to chime in. I think you asked a *great* question. Maybe it would be impossible for a government to admit that is what it's doing, but the honesty would be wonderful. Sort of like "we're inconsistent, but here's what we're thinking." I am really hoping we can liberate the Iraqi people, with a bunch of allies, and kill very very few civilians. But more importantly, your contribution has also given us a minor classic: "OI! OI! OI TO THE WORLD!"
Quiet, rookie. You're wrong. CASE CLOSED!!! <font size="1">just for reference, these are trader jorge's catch phrases. i'm not really telling you to be quiet or that you are wrong. carry on. </font>
Where you often basically say " You are wrong, I am right about _________...it's a fact!" or similar without feeling the need to back up your position with any facts other than those you suppose, T-J says something like " Sorry, you are wrong. CASE CLOSED."
Whoops...sorry, Jeff..didn't mean to be redundant. In case you missed it, john, the similarity seems to be about stating your opinion as if it were recognized 'fact'...and expecting people to have reasonable arguments with you despite that.
hhhmmmm, I was thinking the same thing about some of you. Oh well, opinions are like noses- we all have them and they all smell.
is this a current top 5 or an all-time top 5? if it is current then please name 5 ones that are worse than saddam right now.
You know, it doesn't even really matter where Saddam is in the "Top Ten List of the World's Worst People". The fact is that of the world's worst dictators he's the biggest threat to the U.S. He's a threat because: 1. His presence (as demonstrated by a war with Iran and Kuwait) is destabalizing to the middle-east which is an important source of oil for the U.S. (and the rest of the world, including France and Germany). 2. He has developed (and is developing) NBC weapons and has shown a willingness to use them. 3. He is a state sponsor or terrorism (and it really doesn't matter who he helps Al Quaeda or Hesbolah or whoever - they all kill innocent people. It just now that they've shown a willingingness to kill Americans). The other "world's worst dictators" might be awefull people but they don't <i>right now</i> present a direct threat to the U.S. If and when they do they'll be dealt with. All the pro-Saddam people who keep trying to delute his awfulness by pointing out that there are more terrible people in the world miss the point that, while there may be other terrible people in the world, the other people don't pose a threat to us or their neighbors. Saddam does. All of the pro-Saddam people who say the U.S. is hypocritical for using the suffering of the Iraqi people as an excuse to remove Saddam need to remember that the other tyrants don't threaten the U.S. It's not about oil or humanitarianism or brutal dictators. It's about removing a person who has been and will be a potential threat to the U.S. and the rest of the world (why else is he working on NBC weapons?) The other stuff just add more reasons to take him out.
That is silly. It seems you are suggesting that to be acting with 'justice' you would have to act opposing your interests. Why is that? Take the example given: it is in both the Iraqi people's and the US's interest for Saddam to be removed. Why is it unjust for the US to remove him? That makes no sense. Certainly, as you point out, someone could call the US's action into question in terms of their 'motive,' I guess. "You are not doing this to help the Iraqis, but to help yourself." But if the underlying premise is true then the action is certainly still just, regardless of the motive. And you do great disservice to many lawmen from the 'Wild West.' I think you've watched too much Tombstone. Most lawmen were local citizens who did a dangerous job for little reward except bringing the rule of law into a dangerous place so towns could prosper and people could live unaccosted. It was in their interest to 'keep the peace' as they were citizens of the locale, but it wasn't unjust to do so.
1) No, I am saying that to be acting with justice you have to be acting without consideration of your own interests, and that when you do act with that consideration in mind, your ability to be the judge of what the right 'underlying' principle is has been thrown away. 2) I strongly disagree...all my information is textual, not on-line, but according to everything I have read and researched, most of the lawmen were former gunmen themselves, and many of them walked a vert thin line between legal and extra-legal practices even while in office...I am talking during the 'Wild West' period, not the later period where there were, in fact,many of the type you mention. This supports my point...when those with their own interests in mind were the law, it was a very lawless place...When those who actually prioritized 'keeping the peace' came began to be in place, that changed.
Nobody. here. is. pro-Saddam. Maybe. some. are. closet. pro-sodom. But. Nobody. Likes. Hussein. Okay? This is not a childhood sandbox. Why oh why can't we respectfully debate our differences in here? The types of rhetoric we throw at one another rings of Jerry Springer and the current administration's attempts at "diplomacy." All volume and distortion. Little respect, and less content. It's sort of like a Motorhead concert! ... I actually like Motorhead!
I'd like to preface my response by saying that I'm no less guilty than the rest of us. However....what was your message Bob? The non-partisan "we exchange ridiculous rhetoric at each other" message, or the very partisan jab at the current administration's "attempts at diplomacy?" I'm just curious. I would imagine the message was inclusive of the two.......but don't you think that one diminishes the value of the other? It's hard to communicate a message about how partisan we act when you throw out a jab from your corner. It's also hard to communicate an effective message against the current administration while preaching non-partisan values out of the other side of your mouth.
I was trying to make a point. No. one. here. is. pro. war. either. But all the "anti-war" people seem to think so and want to catagorize people who are not participating in protests or bashing bush as "pro-war". We're not. It goes both ways, remember. Also, once again, I still think that "pro-peace" people everywhere (which is pretty much everyone except maybe Raytheon and Usama) should critizice Saddam as much if not more then America. I don't see the "anti-war" (read anti-Bush) people doing that. It's all Saddam is bad but Bush and America are worse! And that's not the truth. Saddam has actually killed people and, so far as we know, Bush hasn't.
I think criticizing our "attempts at democracy" is a little different than calling anti-war people "pro-Saddam", don't you?
Could you be so kind as to quote some specific examples of anti-war people in the United States saying that Bush is worse than Saddam? Thanks.
