In A Way...It's A Great Time To Be Alive

Quote:

How many "innocents" DIED during Gulf War 1?

Very very few. It was one of the best ran wars our military ever had.

Quote:

How many innocents died as a result of inaction by the UN during the 10 years of appeasement?

What ten years would you be referring to? The last 13 years of sanctions? The ones that kept Saddam from being a threat to anyone? Very few innocents died during that time period.

Quote:

How many inncoents died in Afganistan?

During what time period? You're going to have to be more specific.

Quote:

Your choice seems to be appeasement.

You point of view was wrong yesterday, wrong today and eternally wrong. History has proven you wrong.

Um, no it hasn't. Containment has worked on the largest stages of world history.

Tell me, do you believe there is any way to solve problems other than violence, Woiyo? I bet you are an 18 year old male; your worldview certainly reflects one.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

How many "innocents" DIED during Gulf War 1?

How many innocents died as a result of inaction by the UN during the 10 years of appeasement?

How many inncoents died in Afganistan?

Your choice seems to be appeasement.

You point of view was wrong yesterday, wrong today and eternally wrong. History has proven you wrong.

that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Please don't state it as a matter of fact however, because you don't know for sure.

What if the entire world took an attitude of appeasent and everyone considered appeasing the other guy.....oh my God what a f*#king mess that would be!!!!!

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Our 'way of life' is not sacrosanct.

It is not a mandate handed down by god.

Innocent Iraqis should not have to die to protect our 'way of life.' There is no moral defense you can come up with for this argument, Larry, other than the fact that you just don't care if others have to die, as long as America gets what it wants.

I'll repeat again. What is wrong with you?

Cycloptichorn

No, I do not make a moral defense here.

We as a nation have done many reprehensible things since our founding to protect and advance our way of life around the world, and many have died in the process.

I have offered no value judgment of that...just observed that it is a fact.

0 Replies

Then it is your duty, duty, to oppose those who continue to commit reprehensible acts in the name of America, Larry.

This seems to be in direct contradiction to your stated political views. This is a problem; either you oppose those who commit these acts, or you tactictly support them.

Moral bankruptcy. It's a real problem for America these days; just not in the way that the conservatives think.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cyclo - Do you really believe few Kuwati died during Iraqs invasion and occupation of Iraq?

So the people murdered by Saddam AFTER Gulf 1, found in graves were not immocent?

Containment led to the currpotion of the UN Oil for Food program. That worked out great, didn't it?

0 Replies

If one doesn't commit to one side or another...merely observes...one can keep clean hands and not risk loss.....some call this pragmatism....others cowardice....the flaw in this philosophy is that eventually there is a bill that comes due for everyone......and those, especially those that did not run the bill up, must nonetheless pay the brunt of it.....

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Then it is your duty, duty, to oppose those who continue to commit reprehensible acts in the name of America, Larry.

This seems to be in direct contradiction to your stated political views. This is a problem; either you oppose those who commit these acts, or you tactictly support them.

Moral bankruptcy. It's a real problem for America these days; just not in the way that the conservatives think.

Cycloptichorn

I do not consider a war deemed to be in our national interests by our elected representatives a reprehensible act, Cy.

Of course, unfortunately, during a war reprehensible and illegal acts by individuals do occur and I support the full prosecution of those to the maximum extent of pertinant law.

0 Replies

Quote:

Cyclo - Do you really believe few Kuwati died during Iraqs invasion and occupation of Iraq?

I would be willing to bet that zero Kuwatis died as a consequence of Iraq occupying Iraq.

Quote:

So the people murdered by Saddam AFTER Gulf 1, found in graves were not immocent?

#1. Those graves aren't near as large as we previously were told by the government. Like a factor of ten smaller. More importantly,

#2. I don't know what 'immocent' is, so it's hard to say.

Quote:

Containment led to the currpotion of the UN Oil for Food program. That worked out great, didn't it?

I'm not sure what 'currpotion' is. I assume that you were attempting to write 'corruption.'

But yeah, containment did work out great. Saddam didn't attack anyone again. He didn't have WMD progams active. That was the goal of containment, and that's what happened. The corruption in the UN is a different issue altogether from the containment.

I would suggest that you try spell-checking and proofreading your posts if you want anyone to take you seriously.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I do not consider a war deemed to be in our national interests by our elected representatives a reprehensible act, Cy. <--- Larry

So, any war we declare, despite the reasoning, is NOT a reprehensible act by definition? Because our leaders, I don't know, cannot lead us into reprehensble acts? All of Germany's aggression in WWII was in the country's 'best interests' according to it's leaders, does this mean their wars were justified?

I'm having a hard time understanding your position here.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I do not consider a war deemed to be in our national interests by our elected representatives a reprehensible act, Cy. <--- Larry

So, any war we declare, despite the reasoning, is NOT a reprehensible act by definition? Because our leaders, I don't know, cannot lead us into reprehensble acts? All of Germany's aggression in WWII was in the country's 'best interests' according to it's leaders, does this mean their wars were justified?

I'm having a hard time understanding your position here.

Cycloptichorn

I don't know how to state my opinion more clearly than, "I do not consider a war deemed to be in our national interests by our elected representatives a reprehensible act, Cy."

I am not saying they are infallible and cannot err. All human beings do. But that does not make it reprehensible if it was an honest error in judgment, IMO.

0 Replies

Larry
Larry wrote: "Actually, contrary to wanting to "murder our way of life as we currently know it", I do want to preserve our way of life as we know it under Bush...with a steadfast defense against our enemies and emphasis on individuals casting off their dependence on the federal government to provide for them."

I finally understand what Larry is telling all of us: Buy land in Hooverville because that is where the poor and middle classes will end up if he has his way.

BBB

0 Replies

I am not saying they are infallible and cannot err. All human beings do. But that does not make it reprehensible if it was an honest error in judgment, IMO. <-- Larry

Do you believe that the Iraq war was an honest mistake in judgement?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I am not saying they are infallible and cannot err. All human beings do. But that does not make it reprehensible if it was an honest error in judgment, IMO. <-- Larry

Do you believe that the Iraq war was an honest mistake in judgement?

Cycloptichorn

I think the primary reason given (WMD threat) for the Iraq war was based on faulty intelligence that was the product of fallible human beings.

But having said that, I believe that other factors re: the threat posed by Saddam's link to terrorists and his harboring of them, not to mention protecting our access to ME oil, made it in our national interest to invade and occupy the country.

0 Replies

But having said that, I believe that other factors re: the threat posed by Saddam's link to terrorists and his harboring of them, not to mention protecting our access to ME oil, made it in our national interest to invade and occupy the country. <---Larry

Thanks for being honest.

I don't think that it is right for the US to use it's military in order to obtain resources. That sort of imperialism is what we are supposed to fight against, not for.

Given that over 15k Iraqi civilians are dead because of our presence there (and that's a low-end estimate; another 10k are 'missing'), have we reached the point where our national interests have strayed so far away from basic morality as to be considered the wrong interests?

At what point do we make such a decision? Do the ends always justify the means?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

"I don't think that it is right for the US to use it's military in order to obtain resources. That sort of imperialism is what we are supposed to fight against, not for."

Then you must deplore our history as a nation, cy, that was founded after siezing, by force of arms, the possessions of GB in the form of the original 13 colonies. And then came the Westward expansion and then....etc.

0 Replies

Yes, I do deplore our history.

I have often been stuck by the extreme disparity between the concept of America and the reality of America.

It is quite depressing. As a good American child, I grew up believing that we were the best, and that was the end of THAT argument, thank you very much. As I got older, more and more inconsistencies between the stated purpose of America and the reality of our situation began to bug me.

That was years ago. Today, it..... REALLY bugs me. I can't support those who would take us even farther down the wrong path.

As for the initial resistance to GB; I do believe there is a difference inbetween a people deciding to fight for independence, and an outside nation coming in to get it for them. If others acted as we acted today back then, it would be as if France decided we should be liberated, and so attacked GB in America (unasked for by the people there) to 'liberate' us... and our natural resources.

I say it again. If you consider yourself to be an American, you have a moral duty to stand up for the things America is supposed to stand for. Killing innocents is not part of that duty, and there is no justification for it.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I understand your clearly stated value judgment, cy.

My value judgment is that our country, on balance, has done more good than harm to the world with our actions deemed in our national interests by our elected representatives since the founding of the Republic.

0 Replies

I see no reason to fight with you on your last statement, Larry. There is plenty of evidence that you are correct.

But my point isn't that we don't do good, or even that we don't do good on average; it is that the job of the American citizen is to make sure that we are doing good now.

This isn't easy. It requires both a willingness to do independent research and to be ostracized by the group (who will for the most part follow the leaders, becuase it is easier to do that than think), but it is one's duty to take an interest in things.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

This is a terrific debate!
I'm with the cyclops all the way.

0 Replies

"...it is that the job of the American citizen is to make sure that we are doing good now.'

And that, sir, requires each citizen to make a value judgment of what is good or bad.

Examples:

Some think small federal government is good, some think a large federal Nanny government is good.

Some think using military force when deemed in our national interest is good, some think it bad.

And so it goes.

0 Replies

In A Way...It's A Great Time To Be Alive

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know