Are You Getting Scared? - Page 4 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Joe Bauers · #46 11-19-2004, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GermanStar

Oh, we see the advantages of a friendly Iraq -- that isn't the issue at all. The issue is the "myopic partisans" who employ an "end justifies the means" mentality to impose a collective will upon others regardless of the horrific cost. Apparently, perspective is everything...

Exactly. Well said.

Joe B.

boneheaddoctor · #47 11-19-2004, 02:32 PM

You guys need to see this site........

http://massgraves.info/

then say we were wrong to oust sadam.

KirkVining · #48 11-19-2004, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GermanStar

Oh, we see the advantages of a friendly Iraq -- that isn't the issue at all. The issue is the "myopic partisans" who employ an "end justifies the means" mentality to impose a collective will upon others regardless of the horrific cost. Apparently, perspective is everything...

Well put.

boneheaddoctor · #49 11-19-2004, 02:40 PM

Only if you WANTED Saddam to kill a few million people, and take over the Middle east.......

How much were you guys coillecting from him (saddam) we know what Frances price was.

Joe Bauers · #50 11-19-2004, 02:45 PM

To sum up: Saddam Hussein was a bad guy when daddy Bush was doing business with him; he was a bad guy when Dick Cheney was doing business with him as CEO of Halliburton; and he was a bad guy when Donald Rumsfeld shook his hand on the tarmack of the Bagdhad airport years ago. Yes, he was a bad guy, one of many in the world. That is not the question.

The question is: What gives the United States the right to be the moral arbiter in the world? And of all the bad guys in the world today--why this particular one, and why now?

We ought to handle the business on our plate since September 11, 2001--and that business is Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaeda. Al Quaeda declared war on us; Bin Laden orchestrated the attacks of 9/11. We had the world on our side when we bagan that fight; now we do not, because we have clearly over-reached.

Joe B.

boneheaddoctor · #51 11-19-2004, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Bauers

To sum up: Saddam Hussein was a bad guy when daddy Bush was doing business with him; he was a bad guy when Dick Cheney was doing business with him as CEO of Halliburton; and he was a bad guy when Donald Rumsfeld shook his hand on the tarmack of the Bagdhad airport years ago. Yes, he was a bad guy, one of many in the world. That is not the question.

The question is: What gives the United States the right to be the moral arbiter in the world? And of all the bad guys in the world today--why this particular one, and why now?

We ought to handle the business on our plate since September 11, 2001--and that business is Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaeda. Al Quaeda declared war on us; Bin Laden orchestrated the attacks of 9/11. We had the world on our side when we bagan that fight; now we do not, because we have clearly over-reached.

Joe B.

I'll bet a UN investigation in the oil for food scam turns up money going to the Clintons.....that would explain a lot.

Besides have you watched the news.......they have the banks trail to Palestinian Homicide bombers familyies ($25,000 each) from saddam....

But OH, Palestinians blowing up kids and women are not terrorists in your mind.

#52 11-19-2004, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Bauers

What gives the United States the right to be the moral arbiter in the world? And of all the bad guys in the world today--why this particular one, and why now?

No one did or can 'give' us the right, we claimed the right to take action because we could, and because it was in our economic and political interests to do so. Call me cynical, but this is the nature of nationhood, and you see this scenario repeated in different places and times featuring different players throughout history. We need no other motive beyond 'it is in our interests to do this' to do something, and we certainly aren't required to seek permission from the U.N. or anyone else to do it.

Note that I am not defending the rightness or wrongness of these particular actions, and I have no interest in getting into another Iraq flamewar. I'm just answering that 'who gives you the right?' question honestly.

dolebludger · #53 11-19-2004, 04:19 PM

I object to the implication that when I compare some world leader to Hitler, I am "out of ammunition." Sure, if somebody says only "I don't like Bush --he's just like Hitler", then THAT person is both out of ammunition and incorrect. Conservatives compared Poi Pot and the current North Korean leader to Hitler, and gave reasons, and IMO they are correct.

I said only that there are disturbing similarities in the Bush administration, its recent acts, and its apparent direction to those of Hitler. And I gave examples also. True ones. Bush is not "just like Hitler" and I never said he was. But I have said that Bush is getting a bit too much like Hitler for my comfort level. Does anybody disagree that our freedoms are being erroded? By the way, I stand by my statements that there was lack of valid reasons for a first strike on Iraq, according to traditional US military principles.

Other ways Bush's conduct is disturbing to me is his ever increasing harsh and militant language. In the '00 election, he spoke of being a uniter, not a divider, and of being a compassionate conservative. Now, his words are vile concerning his opposition, he has rid his "inner circle of anybody approaching a moderate Republican, and even used the pardoning of the Thanksgiving turkey as a forum to blast Michael Moore. I don't expect Bush to like Moore, but this language on this occasion was tastless and mean spirited. Clinton didn't blast Rush Limbaugh at his turkey pardonings, did he? Bush's increasingly mean spirited retoric is IMO another move in the Hitlerian direction.

Thanks,
Richard

Joe Bauers · #54 11-19-2004, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by webwench

No one did or can 'give' us the right, we claimed the right to take action because we could, and because it was in our economic and political interests to do so. Call me cynical, but this is the nature of nationhood, and you see this scenario repeated in different places and times featuring different players throughout history. We need no other motive beyond 'it is in our interests to do this' to do something, and we certainly aren't required to seek permission from the U.N. or anyone else to do it.

Note that I am not defending the rightness or wrongness of these particular actions, and I have no interest in getting into another Iraq flamewar. I'm just answering that 'who gives you the right?' question honestly.

I assume, therefore, that you would have just as dispassionate an attitude toward another country "claiming the right" against us--say, North Korea, by way of a nuclear attack?

I understand your point--that this is the pattern that powerful nations have followed for as long as we have kept track of such things. Nations that have aspired to empire have certainly followed this pattern, always to their ultimate detriment. Is there no room for idealism in this country any longer? Because we can, therefore we do--is that our only abiding value? Is there no possibility that this nation--so fond of telling all who will listen of its greatness--will for once break the might-makes-right cycle? Or is that asking for too much?

Joe B.

Joe Bauers · #55 11-19-2004, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

There are two assumptions in that argument.

One is the assumption is that all force is equally bad.

The otehr is that all arguments are made in a vacuum--taht it doesn't matter who voices the argument.

Thus, if we use force justified by our aims, and the stated aims are the same as some mass murdering unelected dictator for life, well they are equally evil.

These are assumptions that I reject. The one thing that matters more than anything else is who voices the argument. All governments are NOT equal. Thus, the argument, though composed of the same wordss are not equal.

If one of my kids says, "He did it" but the other kid says, "No, she did it." The both say the same thing. But If I know one to be fair and honest with a domonstrated history of good behavior while the other tortures small animals and shoplifts, I make a judgement based, not on the words (which are the same) but on the child.

Yes, but the rule of ethnocentrism is that each party always assumes a moral superiority to the other. No one is willing to admit any moral shortcomings in such an exchange. The U.S. always thinks itself moral and good, and sometimes it is; sometimes, though, it is not.

MTI · #56 11-19-2004, 05:59 PM

Mahatma Gandhi
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Nelson Mandela

and that's all I have to say about that.

mikemover · #57 11-19-2004, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

There are two assumptions in that argument.

One is the assumption is that all force is equally bad.

The otehr is that all arguments are made in a vacuum--taht it doesn't matter who voices the argument.

Thus, if we use force justified by our aims, and the stated aims are the same as some mass murdering unelected dictator for life, well they are equally evil.

These are assumptions that I reject. The one thing that matters more than anything else is who voices the argument. All governments are NOT equal. Thus, the argument, though composed of the same wordss are not equal.

If one of my kids says, "He did it" but the other kid says, "No, she did it." The both say the same thing. But If I know one to be fair and honest with a domonstrated history of good behavior while the other tortures small animals and shoplifts, I make a judgement based, not on the words (which are the same) but on the child.

What he said, times two!

Mike

mikemover · #58 11-19-2004, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boneheaddoctor

I'll bet a UN investigation in the oil for food scam turns up money going to the Clintons.....that would explain a lot.

Dude, don't "conspiracy theory" out on us......

I loathe the Clintons and most of the UN just as much as anyone else with a brain, but.....Let's try to stick to facts, or at least accusations that have SOME trace of supporting evidence.

Mike

mikemover · #59 11-19-2004, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GermanStar

Oh, we see the advantages of a friendly Iraq -- that isn't the issue at all. The issue is the "myopic partisans" who employ an "end justifies the means" mentality to impose a collective will upon others regardless of the horrific cost. Apparently, perspective is everything...

On that contrary! I am very much in support of what we're trying to acheive in Iraq and the Middle East overall, yet I'm HARDLY the kind of "myopitc partisan" that I believe you are describing......I despise most modern Republicans' politics almost as much as I despise most modern Democrats' politics.

Sometimes, the end DOES justify the means.

Mike

dolebludger · #60 11-19-2004, 07:41 PM

Guys:

I've said nothing about Bill Clinton, as he is not relevant to the discussion of what justifies the US "firing the first shot" and invading another country. Nothing in what I was taught as a military officer justifies our invasion of Iraq.

In contrast, there is this strange relationship with the Saudis that has emerged. Osama is a Saudi. All the terrorists who are known to have directly participated in 9/11 were Saudis. Many of Osama's family lived inthe US on 9/11, yet they were allowed to fly out when all planes were grounded, with no FBI or CIA interrogation. When Tim McVey bombed the Federal Building in my hometown in 1995, and when his identity was reasonably established, the FBI was in contact with his family pronto, and they certainly were not allowed to leave the country. Strange world.

Thanks,
Richard