quote:I still maintain it has its uses, especially as a message to (and possibly a warm up for) North Korea
Do you have any idea how morally bankrupt that statement is? The idea that it was OK to kill thousands of innocent people in order to intimidate North Korea is so far outside the bounds of any ethical or moral philosophy that it makes my head spin.
This is the way bullies behave.
[ October 07, 2003, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe Kay said in interviews Sunday approx. 9 months from now, I hedged with 6-12 months. The $600 million is accurate, it is the Bush administration funding request to congress to complete the WMD search.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that the ending of Hussein's rule is a good thing. I believe that the war could lead to good things for the Iraqi people, and possibly the people of the entire region. Further, with our stance after the Gulf War, it was almost politically inevitable.
As I stated, in the context of the "War on Terrorism" however, it appears, so far, to have been a major waste of US resources.
There is one reason that Hussein was a threat compared to most of the other dictators and cruel inhuman mad men that run countries from Burmah to Liberia (he's trying to call in his dictatorship now). Hussein proved through his history that he was an aggressive dictator. He sought conquest, not his own little patch of the world to smite and torture.
He invaded Iran. He invaded Kuwait. He threatened Saudi Arabia. He threatened Isreal. He wanted not to be the supreme leader of Iraq, but of the entire Islamic World. The Ba'ath party is an Islamic Unity party.
Perhaps this is why people thought he had to go. Its a shame no one has ever brought it up as a reason to invade.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
even mistakes can have good effects. You treat it as if I was saying that was a justification for this instead of saying (as I did) that it was a useful side effect.
I totaled my car a month ago. This was, all in all, a very bad thing due to a misperception on my part (because of the sun's reflections, I couldn't see and consequently ran a red light). People were mildly injured, some of them could easily have been injured severely or killed. Am I morally bankrupt for pointing out that my new car is both better and has a lower monthly payment than my previous one?
Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan, it was repeatedly brought up as a reason to invade. By people here and at least once by the administration. People ask "why didn't Bush say that?" but he did. I remember hearing it. Again, just because the WMDs got all the play does *not* mean the argument was never made-- it just wasn't focused on...
Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
TAK, If you went up to the person who was injured in the accident and said gee I'm sorry but look on the bright side, I've got a nice new car now -- it would be morally bankrupt.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Have I rubbed someone's nose in something in that fashion? if so, I apologize. It was certainly not my intent...
Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You probably haven't rubbed anyones nose in it. I just found your analogy to be poor.
The reason I found your original statement morally bankrupt was that I find diplomacy by intimidation to utterly immoral. The way I see it, it is as if the biggest strongest kid in school gets in a fight and breaks some little guys leg. Then he says, well it was bad of me to break the kids leg but on the bright side now everyone in the school will do anything I ask.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, but when there are two bullies and you beat the living $h17 out of one and look to the other; it's common that all you have to do to ensure he behaves is ask "next?"
Unless you feel it is more moral to simply beat both of them up?
The unfortunate truth is that sometimes bullies have to be taught the meaning of fear, and a pacifist simply cannot do that. The playground of the world has no teacher or prinicpal's office.
Edit: what I was getting at is if the kid who's leg he broke was swaggering around and threatening people... maybe the broken leg is the unfortunate outcome of a good intention.
[ October 07, 2003, 10:35 PM: Message edited by: T. Analog Kid ]
Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
