1
   

Invading Iraq is completly justified using this criteria:

 
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2003 12:02 pm
Maybe "let on" was a poor choice of words, what I meant is that you have the essense of what I'd intended to do perfect. In short I'm just saying you get it.

As to discussion about the merits of criteria I don't want them but it's probably inevitable.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2003 04:51 pm
War is wrong, because killing is wrong.



(How's that?)
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2003 04:54 pm
Sigh
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2003 04:57 pm
I would have thought 1. met your criteria as an argument against the war, Craven?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2003 04:59 pm
Yes, it did, and the edit made it 100% compliant. Without the edit it was the same ole same ole.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2003 05:03 pm
This is like playing netball as opposed to basketball!!

In netball, you can't move your feet once you have the ball - 'tis unnatural and bad for the knees.....heehee....but good discipline, no doubt.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2003 05:09 pm
Hey, it was hard for me not to give criteria that supports the war without lacing it with the arguments against it. But that's the point of the whole thing.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2003 05:10 pm
PDiddie, if you really wanna go all the way come up with criteria that would support the war.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2003 05:14 pm
Quote:
You don't have to support the criteria to acknowledge it. The criteria I will detail is not one I support, I use other criteria that supercedes it. But this isn't about my criteria, it's about criteria in general.


IN SUPPORT: American hegemony.

IN OPPOSITION: American hegemony.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2003 05:15 pm
IN SUPPORT: To secure the petroleum resources of Iraq for the United States and her allies.

IN OPPOSITION: Greed.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2003 05:18 pm
SUPPORT: To establish a democratic (or at least a democracy-friendly) government in the region.

OPPOSE: Arrogance.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2003 05:20 pm
PDiddie wrote:

IN SUPPORT: American hegemony.

IN OPPOSITION: American hegemony.


I love this. Well said.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2003 05:45 pm
SUPPORT: we can
OPPOSE: its illegal
0 Replies
 
dafdaf
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2003 07:02 am
Ultimately I want to see the world war-free like (i believe) everyone). Lot's of different ways of going about that. One of which gives a possible criteria of the war. By invading and conforming an aggressive country, we can strike it of the list of countries disturbing the peace.

That's an ethical criteria as apposed to a legal one though, and as such I'm not sure that it's what you were after. Still coming to grips with what kind of thing is needed here. Any chance of a couple more examples Craven?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2003 07:49 am
I have a nice mixture of might is right and simple utilitarianism.

America is the dominant force and therefore has the right to push everyone else around - might is right.

This is both true and inevitable, and the sooner everyone gets used to it, the better, since once they are used to it they will stop fighting it and less Americans and others will get killed and we will have that pax americana thing - utilitarianism.

Iraq was a smallish and relatively weak country that the USA was gonna beat easily and quickly - therefore few casualties (for a war) - it was a good place for a global lesson, therefore, and its example will mean fewer people will struggle against the inevitable and hurt themselves.
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2003 09:47 am
[qoute="Dlowan"]America is the dominant force and therefore has the right to push everyone else around - might is right. [/quote]

Theoretically, it is right. But in real life U.S. is not abusing its military superiority over other countries when no security concerns are involved. I cannot recall in memory any occasion of the U.S. abuse against such countries as, for example, Australia, Kenya, Brunei or Sweden. There are certain regimes that pose serious danger to strategic interests of the USA, and these may get appropriate treatment. All the other countries are being dealt with by means of "conventional" diplomacy.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2003 09:50 am
steissd

Do you mean, 'diplomacy' is a word known to US politicans?
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2003 10:02 am
The American Heritage Collegiate Dictionary defines diplomacy as:
Quote:

[...]
NOUN: 1. The art or practice of conducting international relations, as in negotiating alliances, treaties, and agreements. 2. Tact and skill in dealing with people. See synonyms at tact.

I mean the same thing, and the source I used has the U.S. origin.
0 Replies
 
Tex-Star
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2003 10:31 am
Well, there's France, Germany, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Syria (who's missing?) who stood to prosper with Saddam in place. Sneaky, behind-America's-back tactics in supplying Iraq with material to manufacture weapons of mass destruction that our government slowly became aware of. While these countries may not have had the elimination of America as a super power in mind, maybe there's no proof they didn't, either.

Is this proper "criteria?"
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2003 10:59 am
Well, I would exclude from this list Palestine (I mean, Palestinian Authority). They did not sneak anything to Iraq, on the contrary, they were recipients of financial aid rendered by Saddam... They merely had nothing to sneak.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/13/2024 at 02:13:47