Sorry, the root of ideology is "idea" not "ideal."
The root of ideal is idea.
the American ideal is a very modest ideal of greatest freedom and prosperity for the most, not an ideology.
Yes it is, ideology from merriam webster...
1 : visionary theorizing
2 a : a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture b : a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture c : the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program
There would never have been the concept of freedom and none of the prosperity enjoyed by the West and America in particular without Christianty. Revisionist history has deprived you of the knowledge of these things.
What on earth are you talking about? Democracy was a nonXian idea. Check into history on that. In the west it was exemplified by the Greeks and Romans, and was REJECTED by Jews and then Xians who used Monarchical models. Thats why the Roman empire collapsed into feudalism.
Why don't you find me any passage in the Bible extolling the virtues of democracy or free thought. You know you can't as it has always been a King-servant model.
The Enlightenment era philosophers were reacting to Xian feudal models, rejecting them to espouse a return to pagan democratic models of gov't.
Capitalism *creates* wealth which is necessary to the general prosperity of the society as a whole, which in the West has made the poorest of us staggeringly prosperous by the standards of most of the rest of the world.
A nation may have wealth with or without capitalism. Free markets tend to develop wealth faster. However, capitalism is not the only system with free markets.
As far as your claim that the poorest people in capitalist western nations are staggeringly prosperous compared to the rest of the world, I am not sure what you are talking about.
The people in the west with the most "staggeringly prosperous" poor, are socialist nations and not capitalist ones. Sweden beats the pants off the US as far as quality of life, specifically for the poor. When I was in Denmark I lived better off with a poor person than I did with a really decent job in the US.
When you compare US poor to those in the rest of the world, I can only assume you mean 3rd world nations. Only most of these are capitalist! Just because a nation is poor, or 3rd world, does not mean they aren't capitalist.
I heartily defend free markets... but that is different then supporting capitalism.
You are entitled to your opinion about the situation, but not your bashing of those who are doing these things in good faith.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. My comment was not directed at what they thought they were doing and whether it was in good faith. My comment was aimed directly at their inabilities as leaders. They are incompetent. They are unable to perform their duties as they should... get it?
I have no idea if it was the RIGHT judgment call, but there was no MORAL failure in supporting him at the time
If that was not our only option, how on earth could it be a right judgement call, or NOT a moral failure to oppose his gassing of his own people? Or even if not opposing him, why would it have been right to help him do it?
Conversely, why was it a moral failure to oppose him at the time?
I am SURE nobody EVER "accepted" that atrocity, but were merely doing the best with a bad situation as I said.
They denounced those pointing to the acts and calling them atrocities, you know what you are calling them now. You can't have your cake and eat it too on this one. Either they were atrocities or they were doing the best we could in a bad situation. Remember, its not just that we stayed allies, we helped him do what he did.
Actually, why can't Saddam appeal to that same excuse that you are appealing to?
Doing good may be killing an enemy. Doing nothing might cause the death of millions.
He gassed his own people, not our enemies. His not having gassed his people would not have caused the death of millions. Where have you gotten this revisionist history from?
And again I feel the need to ask, if not gassing his own people would have resulted in the deaths of millions, why could he not defend his actions with that same excuse?
Moral principles do not change.
You just said they DO change. When circumstances dictate, sometimes you must accept EVIL. Those were your own words.
Read the list. MOST of it was WELL outside the Bush administration, even in the Clinton administration.
Why when I said I am not a Dem? If your list does nothing against my point, then why should I read it. Yes I am aware that there was a group of people that did agree that Saddam had WMDs or was moving to get them. That does not mean that everyone outside the Bush administration was agreed on it, or that a majority of people outside of the Bush administration agreed on it.
Who are they to tell us what a sovereign nation should be allowed to do,
The irony of this statement is staggering. They have a right to tell one sovereign nation not to invade another sovereign nation... which is the height of telling another sovereign nation what it should be allowed to do.
The fact that YOU don't see your incredibly fallacious and dangerously irrational thinking would amaze me except that I'm getting used to it.
That doesn't get you off the hook, it just sinks you deeper.
That is an evil lie.
Would that be opposed to your good lie? What exactly are you disputing, that we killed innocent people? Or that we are currently trying to kill anyone who is willing to reject the gov't we have put into place?
I'm not saying there is no popularity for the current gov't, just that the nature of that gov't came from us and we are enforcing it with military power.
Clever of you, but you pervert all reason as usual. In fact you make me so sick I have to end this post for now. What swill, what evil moral equivalence.
Holy cow, is this for real?
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2
