Iraq Soccer team against Bush propaganda.

Finn dAbuzz
Reply Sun 22 Aug, 2004 10:13 pm
ebrown_p wrote:

This is not anectdotal.

This is from interviews with real Iraqi's- Iraqi's who experienced the terrors of the Hussein regime. These quotes work as a primary source.

Interviews with Iraqis (real or otherwise) constitute anecdotal evidence.

Aren't/weren't you a teacher?
0 Replies
Finn dAbuzz
Reply Sun 22 Aug, 2004 11:25 pm
Bazooey wrote:

You're missing the point. Just who gets to decide who the "worst of dictators" are in the first place? Who sets themselves up on high above all other nations and makes that determination? By what right? Unless you're ready to say "the UN", any answer you could give would be utterly arbitrary. The rules either apply to everyone, or no one.

Not at all.

As it has been throughout history, the most powerful gets to decide. Fortunately, the "most powerful" these days is America. Is it perfect in its decisions? Of course not, but compared to its antecedents it might as well be. "The" point is, of course, simply "Your" point, and it is at best, fanciful. There never has been a global decision making body and it will be decades, if not centuries, before one exists. You can argue as if such a body exists, but it does not. The UN certainly isn't such a body.

Again the point seems to elude you. "What is evil?", to paraphrase. Are the things Saddam was doing in his own country yesterday somehow measurably worse than the things yours is doing in it today? So tell me, then... what's evil?

Again, it seems to elude you that "the" point is merely "your" point.

And yes, the "things" Saddam was doing in his own country are measurably worse that the things the US is doing in Iraq today. Saddam is "evil."Sadly, too many people cannot or will not see the difference between Saddam's tyranny in Iraq and America's liberation.

I haven't read all of the postings on this thread, and so this may not be original, but it is quite telling that under US occupation there is an Iraqi football team of which the members feel safe enough to make the comments they have. Does anyone think they would have made similar comments if Saddam was still in power?

The fact that these Iraqis can make these comments without fear that they and their families will be killed doesn't mean that the totality of the US occupation has been positive or properly executed, but it goes a long way in answering the ridiculous question: "What is evil?"


No, I was saying that the United States has no moral right to deny to others a capacity it claims itself. If you don't want other people to have the Bomb, give it up yourself. Otherwise, live with the precedent you've set, and no bitching when others follow your example. This "evil dictators" dividing line that, first of all, you have no right to set, and secondly, can and obviously would be drawn anywhere in the sand convenient to the United States at any given moment, is threadbare rhetorical hypocrisy.

Can there be a more idiotic argument?

Because there are nuclear powers in the world, all nations should have the "right" to arm themselves with nuclear weapons.

First of all, none of the nuclear powers want to see new members of the club, and so your focus on the United States is fallacious.

Secondly, the countries now seeking nuclear weapons are, undeniably, dictatorships. If use of the word "evil" offends your sensibilities, let's not use it, but which nations are in the process of seeking nuclear capabilities?

Greece? Thailand? Latvia? New Zealand? Argentina? Australia? Kenya? Portugal? Mexico? Trinidad & Tobago? Canada? Iceland? Belgium? South Africa? Chile? Vietnam? Sri Lanks? Netherlands? Uruguay? Costa Rica? Cuba? Burma? Estonia? Poland? Egypt? Jordan? Cambodia? Indonesia?
etc, etc etc.


North Korea did and succeeded.

Iran is.

Iraq was and failed.

Libya was and gave up.

These are all examples of "evil" intent.

Guy's not a serial killer till he actually kills someone; you see, that's the problem here. Is Saddam ruthless? Yes. But aside from annexing Texas -- I mean, Kuwait -- what has he ever done outside his own country?

Yes, there can be a more idiotic argument.

Who cares about those sand monkeys in Kuwait? So what if Saddam invaded them?

And who cares that in the course of the Gulf War he fired Scud missiles on both Saudia Arabia and Israel? And who cares that he gassed Kurds or that he engaged in a horrific war with Iran?

He wasn't being "evil," just mischievous.

Has he overturned inconvenient Latin American governments, like in Guatemala, or Panama, or Chile, or lately Venezuela so they don't euroize their oil production? Did he interfere in, and thus exacerbate, a civil war in Vietnam? Did he drop nuclear weapons on Japanese cities and vapourize about a quarter million civilians?

Let's, for the sake of argument, assume that the US is guilty of all of your charges: It nuked the peace loving nation of Japan that presented no threat to America or any other nation on Earth. It interfered in a civil war in Vietnam despite the fact that no other powers (not the Soviet Union or China) were supporting one of the sides. It overturned the regime of Hugo Chavez (funny, but the last time I looked, he was still in power). It overthrew the benign regime of Norriega in Panama.

Assuming all of your charges are correct...so what?

How does any of the history of the US mitigate the evil of Saddam?

Are you arguing that anyone guilty of a crime cannot seek to prevent another?
0 Replies
Reply Mon 23 Aug, 2004 05:51 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
It is also true that it would be extremely foolish to invade a nuclear power under any but the most extraordinary circumstances.

Yaknow, I'm not so sure about this.

After all. Nuclear devices, while quite destructive, are neither easy to obtain nor use effectively.

My argument about invasion refers to countries that are already nuclear, so the question of obtaining nukes doesn't apply. I believe that it would be possible for a nuclear country to pose a significant threat to an invader. Say we attempted to invade North Korea. They could use one nuke to kill a mammoth number of South Koreans and then say, "Withdraw at once, or we'll do it again." Alternatively, if our troops were not in the vicinity of their cities yet, they could take out a very large number of them with a single, well positioned nuclear bomb. If we had a significant naval presence in the vicinity, that could be a good target unless it were very dispersed.

Cycloptichorn wrote:
If we attack a nuclear-capable country; the true threat is in long-range missles. If said country does not have them, they would have a hard time setting a device off on American soil.

First of all, I was referring to an invaded country using nukes in its own vicinity to defend itself, so their ability to get a nuke to American soil is not necessary for me to be correct. However, for the record, they would not have such a hard time setting of a nuke on American soil. They would only have to take it apart and smuggle the pieces into the US, and then reassemble it here. Our inspection at ports is not likely to be good enough to stop a determined effort to do this. Of all of the parts of the nuclear device, probably the one that would be hardest to smuggle in would be the fissionable material itself, but I believe this would be very doable as well.

Cycloptichorn wrote:
If your contention is that we should not attack said country due to the risk, remember that this basically allows them to hold us hostage to demands, which is not a good position to be in. Better to close the borders and get on with the attack, if that is the case.

Yes, of course it allows a nuclear power to hold us hostage to their demands, but I am not creating the fact, just pointing out that it is true. If we start to invade a nuclear country, they can use nukes against our invading soldiers, or threaten to kill some innocent 3rd party, as described previously in this post.
0 Replies
Reply Mon 23 Aug, 2004 06:01 am
Bazooey wrote:
What you are saying here is like saying that becuase I think that I have the right to own a gun, I am a hypocrite if I think that a serial killer should be prevented from owning a gun.

Guy's not a serial killer till he actually kills someone; you see, that's the problem here. Is Saddam ruthless? Yes. But aside from annexing Texas -- I mean, Kuwait -- what has he ever done outside his own country? Has he overturned inconvenient Latin American governments, like in Guatemala, or Panama, or Chile, or lately Venezuela so they don't euroize their oil production? Did he interfere in, and thus exacerbate, a civil war in Vietnam? Did he drop nuclear weapons on Japanese cities and vapourize about a quarter million civilians?

Yeah, tell us all about serial killers who shouldn't have guns now.

Finn has done what I consider to be a good job in responding to most of your post and my time is limited, so I'll just jump in on this one piece. My point is to challenge your assertion that by owning a weapon, I forfeit the right to deny the same ownership to someone else. This idea is false both for countries and for individuals.

Apart from discussions of Iraq at all, I can disprove the fundamental idea you are advancing by drawing an analogy to gun ownership. By owning a gun, I do not forfeit the right to believe that certain individuals should be denied gun ownership. The fact that one citizen should be allowed gun ownership does not imply that every citizen should. For instance, someone with a long history of convictions for violent crimes should probably not be. My point is not that Hussein has a long history of violent crimes (although it seems true), my point is that the fundamental idea you are asserting that by doing action A, person B forfeits the right to deny action A to others is false.
0 Replies
Reply Mon 23 Aug, 2004 06:13 am
Bazooey wrote:
...But those people don't count, after all. They're not white, and they don't even speak English, so who cares what they're hilariously babbling about in those 9-second FOX News soundbites anyway? Oh, wait... by extension, I appear to be putting words in your oblivious, monstrously self-absorbed mouth again, saying the things you ultimately mean but could never actually say. So sorry.

You should be. You have just accused me of racism. What you appear to be saying is that even though I have never voiced a racist sentiment in any post ever, you know that I am secretly a racist, so can attack me for things I have never said. This is, to say the least, improper. If you can do this to me, then I can condemn you for advocating imprisoning conservatives, even though you never said any such thing. I have always considered name calling to be the lowest form of debate, but condemning someone for things you admit that they never said is probably lower.
0 Replies

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/26/2021 at 05:28:06