AXIS of Evil.

Brandon9000 wrote:

I also think that the government of the People's Republic of China is evil, but that doesn't mean that I favor cutting off all relations with them. The world is more comlicated than that.

Spelling happens Brandon.

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

I also think that the government of the People's Republic of China is evil, but that doesn't mean that I favor cutting off all relations with them. The world is more comlicated than that.

Spelling happens Brandon.

What are you, 10?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Obviously, the first question isn't answerable until you draw out some careful and consistent definition of what that term might even mean.

To your second question, I could share that all three fall away from my notions of how governance ought to be done.

A valuable point is made here by Blatham McG, and that is the philosophical notion of what is or is not evil, and whether or not the term can fairly or adequately be applied to a nation, a government, a people or a person.
Do no other, possibly more fitting, descriptors exist?
Labelling Il's North Korea, or Ahmadinejad's Iran as "evil" is wholly analogous to the calls from al-Qaeda and other militants in the region to destroy the Great Satan, and they are useless labels to attach.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

candidone1 wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:

I also think that the government of the People's Republic of China is evil, but that doesn't mean that I favor cutting off all relations with them. The world is more comlicated than that.

Spelling happens Brandon.

What are you, 10?

Sorry, was that in reference to me or to Brandon?
If it was to me, then surely the question could be posed also to your friend.

Brandon9000 wrote:

I believe that's spelled imbecile

The point I was making, first of all, was to Brandon, secondly, was intended to demonstrate that if one wishes to make habits of correcting others' spelling, then one better go over theirs with a fine toothed comb, and third, spelling mistakes are rarely germane to the discussion.
So, McG, take out your teeth and bite me.

0 Replies

source

0 Replies

I think this thread is perfect as it is, and should be preserved.

It becomes apparent that the problem is that liberals don't believe in the existence of evil, or, at least, scoff at the word when used, indicating they don't recognize it as a valid concept.

That really says it all, and in particular shows why they ought not to be in the position of running the country.

0 Replies

Absolutely Brandon. The true measure of an administration is in their ability or willingness to apply to things, people and nations, the term "evil".

0 Replies

Brandon
I believe that evil exists in people. Take Bush for instance. Evil or Very Mad

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

Absolutely Brandon. The true measure of an administration is in their ability or willingness to apply to things, people and nations, the term "evil".

A pity that you can only defeat an opponent's idea by knowingly misstating it.

I certainly did not assert what you dishonestly ascribe to me. What I said was that "evil" is a useful category. I also said that an unwillingness to recognize the existence of evil in the world, or to recognize it as important and relevant, makes one unfit to lead a country.

If you're going to argue against my point of view, how about arguing against my actual point of view, and not putting words in my mouth that I never said?

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Brandon
I believe that evil exists in people. Take Bush for instance.

Alright, I agree with you, although not about Bush. And, if, as you now admit, evil exists, it is important for a national leader to point it out and lay plans against it, in cases where it looks like it might manifest itself in a dangerous way.

0 Replies

Quote:

The Concept of Evil: Why It's Intellectually Valid and Politically and Spiritually Important
by Andrew Bard Schmookler

Source

Comments?

0 Replies

Double Post

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

au1929 wrote:
Brandon
I believe that evil exists in people. Take Bush for instance.

Alright, I agree with you, although not about Bush. And, if, as you now admit, evil exists, it is important for a national leader to point it out and lay plans against it, in cases where it looks like it might manifest itself in a dangerous way.

Whether evil exists or does not. Bush's axis of evil statement was as meaningless as the blowhard that made it. Further, it bought us nothing in the war on terror and in fact hardened our adversaries position.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

It becomes apparent that the problem is that liberals don't believe in the existence of evil.....and in particular shows why they ought not to be in the position of running the country.

I have misstated nothing, unless your intended message differed from what you in fact said.

Seems to me that you advocate the notion that the belief in, or application of, the term "evil" is germane to one's ability to run the country.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
au1929 wrote:
Brandon
I believe that evil exists in people. Take Bush for instance.

Alright, I agree with you, although not about Bush. And, if, as you now admit, evil exists, it is important for a national leader to point it out and lay plans against it, in cases where it looks like it might manifest itself in a dangerous way.

Whether evil exists or does not. Bush's axis of evil statement was as meaningless as the blowhard that made it. Further, it bought us nothing in the war on terror and in fact hardened our adversaries position.

Perhaps there is a sense from the perspective of Ahmadinejad that Israel is evil. He then has the same right to point it out, and lay plans against it if it in some way manifests itself as a potential danger.
Yes?

The hypocrisy in the acceptable use of the term "evil" against Ahmadinejad, Hussein or Jong-Il and the unacceptable use of it against Bush/the conservative aganda in the ME speaks volumes for your inability to fairly apply the term.

From the perspective of those in the ME and the DPRK, the US under Bush has become increasingly threatening to their self-interests and increasingly dangerous.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Diplomacy having failed, Bush was right to invade.

That's kind of the essence of it, isn't it? Of course, in Brandon's black-and-white world there's only either diplomacy, or war.

Nonwithstanding the fact that the sanctions and the weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq where decidedly more than diplomacy, and decidedly less than outright war.

And successful at keeping Saddam from acquiring WMD, I might add.

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

au1929 wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
au1929 wrote:
Brandon
I believe that evil exists in people. Take Bush for instance.

Alright, I agree with you, although not about Bush. And, if, as you now admit, evil exists, it is important for a national leader to point it out and lay plans against it, in cases where it looks like it might manifest itself in a dangerous way.

Whether evil exists or does not. Bush's axis of evil statement was as meaningless as the blowhard that made it. Further, it bought us nothing in the war on terror and in fact hardened our adversaries position.

Perhaps there is a sense from the perspective of Ahmadinejad that Israel is evil. He then has the same right to point it out, and lay plans against it if it in some way manifests itself as a potential danger.
Yes?

The hypocrisy in the acceptable use of the term "evil" against Ahmadinejad, Hussein or Jong-Il and the unacceptable use of it against Bush/the conservative aganda in the ME speaks volumes for your inability to fairly apply the term.

From the perspective of those in the ME and the DPRK, the US under Bush has become increasingly threatening to their self-interests and increasingly dangerous.

Fairly apply the term? Is that the problem for you? I have no doubt you support the evil regimes of the world and feel the need to defend them Perhaps your morals have decided their actions don't approach such a concept as "evil" yet the US and Israel do... I would say your morals are **** if that is the case and you might want to seek professional help to straighten them out. Do you feel that way?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Fairly apply the term? Is that the problem for you? I have no doubt you support the evil regimes of the world and feel the need to defend them Perhaps your morals have decided their actions don't approach such a concept as "evil" yet the US and Israel do... I would say your morals are **** if that is the case and you might want to seek professional help to straighten them out. Do you feel that way?

You judge me on nothing more than partisan prejudice.

I have stated that there be a more fair application of the term evil and that there be some degree of relativity applied in the usage of the term.

Do you not think that Iran, N. Korea and Iraq would view the US as an evil empire? Is it that my morals are f***ed or is it perhaps more likely that you subscribe to a morality that holds others to standards that you are not willing to uphold.

While I do view the US and Israel as different kinds of evil nations than say, Saddam's Iraq or Il's Korea, it is worthy to engage in a discussion about the kinds of evil that are perpetrated by Israel and the US.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Diplomacy having failed, Bush was right to invade.

That's kind of the essence of it, isn't it? Of course, in Brandon's black-and-white world there's only either diplomacy, or war.

Nonwithstanding the fact that the sanctions and the weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq where decidedly more than diplomacy, and decidedly less than outright war.

And successful at keeping Saddam from acquiring WMD, I might add.

[/b]

i agree. but a restrained and monitored saddam were politically useless to the right wing and an annoyance to the neocons at the project.

it would seem that further inspections would confirm that, as was claimed post gulf I, that nearly all of iraq's wmd had been destroyed by coalition and iaea teams. don't remember the exact percentage quoted, but i seem to remember that the number was something like 95 or 98% of his existing weapons. i am sure it was more than 90%. the numbers are out there for any wishing to do the research...

i do remember that during the inspections saddam had attained a rocket that had a range of 120 miles, which exceeded the imposed limit of 90 miles. 30 miles... those rockets were summarily destroyed by the iaea and un inspectors.

a rocket of 120 miles may have been a threat to the u.s. if our country bordered iraq on any one of it's boundries. however......

nope, it still comes off to me that bush and his handlers were set on iraq as the entered the white house.

0 Replies

I am sure that the evil in the world no doubt see the freedom's that the US supports as a form of evil and am not the least bit surprised to see someone on A2K try to see their point of view. Any threat to their wicked dominance in their own countries must be scorned by them and those that support them, but I don't see the same kind of evils being perpetrated by the governments of the US or Israel.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know