Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where are the Christian Democrats?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 46 of 71 (214080)
06-04-2005 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Hrun
06-04-2005 12:15 AM


Re: Some flabby encouragement
True, even the most evil people think they are doing good with their evil, so we need an external standard.
America is accused of imperialism, which may enter into some actions in some sense, but for the nmost part not at all in history, the American motive has been remarkable overall as world politics goes, to improve things in the world in general for all people. Hitler was out and out imperialistic for the good of the Vaterland. Is that good just because he thought it good? Communism wants the entire world to be Communist for the good of all. They can't do it any way other than by suppressing all dissenting views and murdering dissenters if necessary, but they think that is doing good, the ends justify the means. Do you?
America is accused of lying about reasons for actions in the Middle East. There was agreement about there being WMD by many others than the Bush administration, there was agreement that Saddam needed to be brought down. Nobody on the Left cares about Saddam's vicious murders; the rap is that America is worse no matter what.
America is put on an equal plane by the Left with the murderers of the Islamic and Communist world. However, sure, those murderers believe they are doing good by killing people, they are bringing in a Communist world in which nobody dares think anything except what they want us to think, or they are bringing in an Islamist world that bows to Allah, in which nobody dares think anything except what they want us to think.
It is bizarre that Americans actually make a moral equivalence here, bizarre, depressing and scary as Hell itself, almost beyond comprehension what the Left promotes.
Before you make such moral equivalences I guess we need to know what YOU think is good.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Hrun, posted 06-04-2005 12:15 AM Hrun has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Hrun, posted 06-04-2005 1:06 AM Faith has replied
 Message 50 by Silent H, posted 06-04-2005 4:45 AM Faith has replied
 Message 53 by crashfrog, posted 06-04-2005 7:49 AM Faith has replied
 Message 61 by lfen, posted 06-04-2005 3:05 PM Faith has not replied

Hrun
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 71 (214081)
06-04-2005 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Faith
06-04-2005 12:54 AM


Re: Some flabby encouragement
Faith, I am not 'making a moral equivalence'. You were stating a principle, and I merely showed that this principle does not hold up as a universal truth. That means, you claimed that the US has good motives in general, I am saying that good motives are not enough to determine if the actions are actually good.
Do you disagree with my point? Or would you rather not discuss the matter and just call me names (moral relativists).
By the way, why do you start talking about 'The Left' or 'communist world' in a reply to me? Do you know more about me than I do?
So, back to the original question, I am not making a moral equivalence. I am challenging merely challenging the fact that having a good motive is a good excuse for the consequences of a specific action.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Faith, posted 06-04-2005 12:54 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Faith, posted 06-04-2005 9:33 AM Hrun has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 48 of 71 (214090)
06-04-2005 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by joshua221
06-03-2005 3:18 PM


Re: the political game
quote:
i do. at least here in the us.
Why?
(about blaming islamists for terror)
because i blame anyone who kills innocent bystanders. us, them, anyone. our country may be partly to blame. and our military may be partly to blame. but on the whole, our civilians are not. most of us have nothing to do with them at all.
and partially, it's the m-o of terrorism. they try to get their way by controlling a population through fear. just doesn't seem like honorable war practice.
however, the military knows what they're getting into, and so do the people over there. if we're in their land, i think that's fair game. no offense to the people who are dying over there.
edit:
Why don't you use capital letters?
i don't like the shift key.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by joshua221, posted 06-03-2005 3:18 PM joshua221 has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 49 of 71 (214097)
06-04-2005 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Monk
06-03-2005 6:21 PM


I'll say it again, Islamist terrorists ARE to blame for their inexcusable acts of barbarism. Whatever the US has or has not done in no way excuses their actions
You left my reply to you hanging.
While I do agree whatever any terrorist does makes them to blame, it is hypocrisy by the US when we have called these same people "freedom fighters" and their actions "good" when used against people we don't like, and "bad" so they are "terrorists" when turned against us.
We have to take part of the blame for our actions too.
We encouraged Islamic radicals in Afghanistan for our own ends and taught them the organization and tactics they are now using against us... yes or no?
We encouraged Saddam Hussein and helped him commit the very atrocities, as well as whitewash them as "necessary", that you and Bush apologists claim were the reason you hate him and he needed to be wiped out... yes or no?
If you say "no" then you are not dealing with the facts. They are very well established in public sources by the Republicans at the time by themselves, and so not some liberal conspiracy or mudslinging.
If you say "yes", then while it does not wholly excuse the actions of terrorists, doesn't it cast a shadow over those US officials who did excuse those actions in the past? And does it not make us somewhat culpable for what we are facing?
You didn't seem to get that my earlier post did not say that they had an excuse, I said it was interesting for you to make the claim they didn't since earlier Conservatives did excuse their actions.
I am the one who has remained consistent (along with many other analysts and rights groups) on the people and actions that became AQ and the Saddam regime. They were inexcusable then, and they are inexcusable now.
You guys say times change? How, when you are using the very examples we had then to make your case now? Flip flop, flip flop.
P.S.--- There are more than Islamic terrorists out there to worry about. There are Xian and Jewish and Hindu terrorists, as well as political terrorists, not to mention enemy nations. Why you seem to focus on Islam is a bit strange.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Monk, posted 06-03-2005 6:21 PM Monk has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 50 of 71 (214099)
06-04-2005 4:45 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Faith
06-04-2005 12:54 AM


Re: Some flabby encouragement
True, even the most evil people think they are doing good with their evil, so we need an external standard.
Isn't that by necessity going to involve...
suppressing all dissenting views and murdering dissenters if necessary... the ends justify the means.
In Iraq, both when we set up Saddam and now while taking him down, we claimed that the ends justify the means.
There was agreement about there being WMD by many others than the Bush administration, there was agreement that Saddam needed to be brought down.
No there wasn't agreement on the WMDs, and while no one liked Saddam and did want him out many many people agreed ENDS DON'T JUSTIFY THE MEANS! Check your own words above on that issue.
Nobody on the Left cares about Saddam's vicious murders; the rap is that America is worse no matter what.
Wrong again, it was the Conservative Republicans that did not care about Saddam's vicious murders. Remember, while people (left, right, and the middle) were outraged by those murders AT THE TIME, and predicted this was a maniac we should not be helping into power, Rummy and Reagan and Bush Sr were putting dissenters down as mamby pamby bleeding heart liberals?
He did not become an enemy until he destabilized the region and posed a threat to oil stability. At that point the Conservatives said "oh look at that monster". So you see to the Conservative Reps:
1) vicious murders=people who say Saddam is bad are bleeding heart wussies,
2) destabilize region and oil supply= Saddam is a vicious murderer.
Get the picture? We stay consist, you guys blow with the wind.
And America has gotten worse with all of these events, especially the normalizing of lies and hyperbole to support partisan policy.
America is put on an equal plane by the Left with the murderers of the Islamic and Communist world.
I don't think that most critics of America would put it as equal. I think most however would find us culpable. The apologists are trying to whitewash the whole deal, and pretend as if that will straighten things out. Everything will all be better if we just realize THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS.
Indeed look at that paragraph you wrote, after decrying ends justify means you now champion that very notion!
I would say there is a moral equivalence between Bush (and some of his neocon crew) and OBL. Indeed, I'd be interested to know where you find the difference, besides technical know how on killing, and the nature of the end religious/political goal. They have both taken the stance that you are with them or against them, and anyone including innocents must die in the offense of their position, or the world will end in catastrophe.
Is there something else I'm missing about these men?
Before you make such moral equivalences I guess we need to know what YOU think is good.
Personally, I don't have such a moral system which involves "good" and "evil" as some sort of objective quality. However I do equate good with things that generally make one successful, or improve living conditions.
Here's what I think is "good":
Using your brain to honestly analyze the history of an area and its people, as well as trends within those areas, then constructing programs and policies which will generally improve the living conditions of people within that area as well as remove threats to our own physical safety.
Now if only the dogmatic apologists of Bush would get on board.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Faith, posted 06-04-2005 12:54 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Faith, posted 06-04-2005 11:01 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 63 by lfen, posted 06-04-2005 3:14 PM Silent H has not replied

Meeb
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 71 (214101)
06-04-2005 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Monk
06-03-2005 6:16 PM


Re: No Utopia
I know many things about Cuba before Castro
About the reign of Batista or do you just jump over it like the CIA World Factbook?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Monk, posted 06-03-2005 6:16 PM Monk has not replied

Trae
Member (Idle past 4306 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 52 of 71 (214103)
06-04-2005 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Monk
06-02-2005 8:13 PM


quote:
Whatever the US has or has not done in no way excuses their actions.
So then the US has no excuse for its actions in the Middle East?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Monk, posted 06-02-2005 8:13 PM Monk has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 53 of 71 (214112)
06-04-2005 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Faith
06-04-2005 12:54 AM


True, even the most evil people think they are doing good with their evil, so we need an external standard.
I try to stick with "results", because I believe that results are the ultimate arbiter of the morality of an action. But also I've found that moral certainty is a pretty good indication of evilness. The evil guys are usually those who are so absolutely certain that they're doing the right thing that they will brook no disagreement or uncertainty among their followers.
So maybe now you understand why I fear and oppose you and your ilk. Your degree of moral certainty informs me that you're likely to turn out about as evil as the terrorists.
The moral equivalence is tough to make. If the terrorists hate and lust for death ten times as much as we do, but our weapons have ten times the indiscriminate destructive capability, who's the more evil? It's tough to say. By a good estimate, we've caused the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis. Maybe we're better people than the terrorists, but our actions would seem to be worse. Make of that what you will.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Faith, posted 06-04-2005 12:54 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Faith, posted 06-04-2005 11:38 AM crashfrog has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 54 of 71 (214124)
06-04-2005 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Hrun
06-04-2005 1:06 AM


Re: Some flabby encouragement
Faith, I am not 'making a moral equivalence'. You were stating a principle, and I merely showed that this principle does not hold up as a universal truth. That means, you claimed that the US has good motives in general, I am saying that good motives are not enough to determine if the actions are actually good.
I was disagreeing with your idea that I was stating the principle you thought I was stating. What I MEANT by our good motives is not the same as all other "good motives" if you examine them. In other words it was not the principle you thought it was. I wasn't just saying that merely if people think they have good motives then they *are* good motives -- I was saying that our motives ARE genuinely good motives by an objective standard (the good of all) that puts them apart from the others I considered.
Your point is moral EQUIVALENCE, not moral relativism, and I didn't accuse YOU PERSONALLY of anything. I'm discussing the topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Hrun, posted 06-04-2005 1:06 AM Hrun has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 55 of 71 (214157)
06-04-2005 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Silent H
06-04-2005 4:45 AM


Re: Some flabby encouragement
True, even the most evil people think they are doing good with their evil, so we need an external standard.
Isn't that by necessity going to involve...
suppressing all dissenting views and murdering dissenters if necessary... the ends justify the means.
Not if the motive genuinely is to promote the American ideals of the greatest freedom and prosperity for all, rather than an ideological agenda. Sometimes you have to fight for these ideals, but that is a far cry from suppressing dissenting views etc.
I personally think our American ideals are not compatible with the mindset of much of the rest of the world, in particular the Islamic Middle East, so that I tend to think that democracy-planting there is a doomed idea, but that's merely to fault the Bush administration's good judgment, not to fault their motives (and the amount of success he has in fact had has surprised me and I say more power to him). Besides which we have other reasons to be there.
In Iraq, both when we set up Saddam and now while taking him down, we claimed that the ends justify the means.
I cringe at the idea that we ever supported Saddam, but even then the idea was to foster the best solution for the situation at the time, and for all I know it WAS the best solution for the situation at the time. Political strategy is a judgment call. You are judging it on an abstract principle rather than the situation of the time. If all you have to work with is tyrants, you do the best you can do with what you've got. Saddam was always evil but sometimes you have a choice only between evils. Times change, situations change.
There was agreement about there being WMD by many others than the Bush administration, there was agreement that Saddam needed to be brought down.
No there wasn't agreement on the WMDs,
Well, here's a list of some Democrats who agreed WMD were a real threat:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Bill Clinton. Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Bill Clinton. Feb. 17, 1998.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Husseinbecause I believethat a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is areal and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry, D-MA. Oct. 2002.
"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents aparticularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone tomiscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response tohiscontinued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of massdestruction.So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."
Sen. John F. Kerry, D-MA. Jan. 23, 2003.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-MA. Sept. 27, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weaponsstock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He hasalso given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaedamembers ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Husseinwill continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemicalwarfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY. Oct 10, 2002.
We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence thatSaddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developingcapacity forthe production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham, D-FL. Dec. 8, 2002.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Clinton'sSecretary of State. Feb 18, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright. Nov. 10, 1999.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser. Feb,18, 1998.
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
----------Letter to President Clinton, signed by Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others. Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-CA. Dec. 16, 1998.
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
------------Letter to President Bush, signed by Sen. Bob Graham, D-FL, andothers. Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored themandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of massdestruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin, D-MI. Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemicalweapons throughout his country."
Vice President Al Gore. Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddamis in power."
Vice President Al Gore. Sept. 23, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course tobuild up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligencereports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd, D-WV. Oct. 3, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is workingaggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclearweapons withinthe next five years ... We also should remember we have alwaysunderestimatedthe progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of massdestruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-WV. Oct 10, 2002.
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm anddestroyhis chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This hehasrefused to do"
Rep. Henry Waxman, D-CA. Oct. 10, 2002.
Democrats on the Record
and while no one liked Saddam and did want him out many many people agreed ENDS DON'T JUSTIFY THE MEANS! Check your own words above on that issue.
Um, this is fudging the definition I believe. I'm sure there is a better way of answering the fallacy than I have at the moment but it seems to me we're talking about a *contradiction* between ends and means. If your end is to depose a dictator, or de-fang a nest of terrorists, your means are going to be violent -- no contradiction there. If your end is to make a peaceful world of Communism, or a peaceful world for Allah, then there's an implicit contradiction between the end and the murdering of everybody who is of a different persuasion -- which is going to amount to millions of innocents, not your armed enemies. I don't think I've said this the best way possible but I think it's in the ballpark.
Nobody on the Left cares about Saddam's vicious murders; the rap is that America is worse no matter what.
Wrong again, it was the Conservative Republicans that did not care about Saddam's vicious murders. Remember, while people (left, right, and the middle) were outraged by those murders AT THE TIME, and predicted this was a maniac we should not be helping into power, Rummy and Reagan and Bush Sr were putting dissenters down as mamby pamby bleeding heart liberals?
I didn't see your evidence, but I might agree with you about their bad judgment if I knew all the particulars, but I still object to the condemnation of mere bad judgment in the moral terms that you are using.
He did not become an enemy until he destabilized the region and posed a threat to oil stability. At that point the Conservatives said "oh look at that monster". So you see to the Conservative Reps:
1) vicious murders=people who say Saddam is bad are bleeding heart wussies,
2) destabilize region and oil supply= Saddam is a vicious murderer.
You are paraphrasing rather than giving evidence for an actual change in assessment of Saddam's character. I doubt the conservatives ever thought he was not an evil man. Diplomatic attempts to deal with difficult situations don't deserve the vicious denunciations that are leveled against people who are acting in good faith. Instead of criticizing particular judgments, and instead of putting American safety above all other concerns, Bush critics don't seem to mind selling us out to our enemies. The habit now is to denounce the character and motives of the person making the judgment and resort to the most vicious slanders. This is a very evil trend.
Get the picture? We stay consist, you guys blow with the wind.
You are fooling yourself. There has been no change in basic motives or character, just in situations. International politics blows with the wind of necessity because there are so many different kinds of cultures and governments and personalities and mindsets that have to be taken into account. Many times there is no choice but to negotiate with evil men. Then you have to fight them when they turn on you. Maybe bad judgment was involved, but not evil men with evil motives as the Left just loves to smear the Right.
And America has gotten worse with all of these events, especially the normalizing of lies and hyperbole to support partisan policy.
There has been no lying. I'm sure you're convinced but this is all trumped up.
America is put on an equal plane by the Left with the murderers of the Islamic and Communist world.
I don't think that most critics of America would put it as equal. I think most however would find us culpable.
Culpable of what? Defending ourselves? Putting our interests ahead of our enemies? Putting our sovereign interests ahead of the interests of the thugs who run the UN?
The apologists are trying to whitewash the whole deal, and pretend as if that will straighten things out. Everything will all be better if we just realize THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS.
Indeed look at that paragraph you wrote, after decrying ends justify means you now champion that very notion!
That's nonsense, I've answered you above as well as I can. Our ends and means are consistent with one another and it is just some kind of ill-willed logic-chopping that tars our efforts with those of tyrants and murderers.
I would say there is a moral equivalence between Bush (and some of his neocon crew) and OBL.
Well, there it is, the Leftist putting of good for evil and evil for good. Such moral blindness is frightening and depressing. And you don't even know that it is the result of decades of careful propaganda to bring down America do you? This crap is taught in our universities by our fifth column.
Indeed, I'd be interested to know where you find the difference, besides technical know how on killing, and the nature of the end religious/political goal. They have both taken the stance that you are with them or against them, and anyone including innocents must die in the offense of their position, or the world will end in catastrophe.
There has to be a name for this pernicious fallacy but I don't know what it is. Something like comparing the least important most superficial elements between two things and calling the wholes equivalent. Sort of like saying mice and elephants are the same thing because they both have two eyes, four legs and a tail. Like saying Hitler and Gandhi are identical because they both liked dogs (I don't know if either of them liked dogs).
Is there something else I'm missing about these men?
===
Before you make such moral equivalences I guess we need to know what YOU think is good.
====
Personally, I don't have such a moral system which involves "good" and "evil" as some sort of objective quality.
Well, that probably explains a lot.
However I do equate good with things that generally make one successful, or improve living conditions.
Here's what I think is "good":
Using your brain to honestly analyze the history of an area and its people, as well as trends within those areas, then constructing programs and policies which will generally improve the living conditions of people within that area as well as remove threats to our own physical safety.
Now if only the dogmatic apologists of Bush would get on board.
I'm not a great Bush fan myself, but his opponents are a blind and ill-willed self-righteous bunch in my opinion and unfortunately they have persuaded huge numbers of people to follow them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Silent H, posted 06-04-2005 4:45 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Silent H, posted 06-04-2005 12:23 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 56 of 71 (214165)
06-04-2005 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by crashfrog
06-04-2005 7:49 AM


The moral equivalence is tough to make. If the terrorists hate and lust for death ten times as much as we do, but our weapons have ten times the indiscriminate destructive capability, who's the more evil? It's tough to say. By a good estimate, we've caused the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis. Maybe we're better people than the terrorists, but our actions would seem to be worse. Make of that what you will.
I see, it's not the terrorists who have actually been blowing them up that have caused their deaths, it's we who are trying to defend the people -- and ourselves -- from the terrorists who are to blame. Of course.
I wonder when you guys are going to wake up. Actually I think most of you will wake up eventually because a time is coming when you'll see who the real enemy is and it will be too late but at least you'll know.
Our firepower may be formidable, but if we were to use it to its highest potential you can be sure there would be no terrorists left in the Middle East -- and probably few others. Get some perspective.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by crashfrog, posted 06-04-2005 7:49 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by crashfrog, posted 06-04-2005 11:44 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 59 by Silent H, posted 06-04-2005 12:32 PM Faith has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 57 of 71 (214167)
06-04-2005 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Faith
06-04-2005 11:38 AM


I see, it's not the terrorists who have actually been blowing them up that have caused their deaths
How could dynamite jackets and IED's kill 100,000 people? Get real.
it's we who are trying to defend the people -- and ourselves -- from the terrorists who are to blame.
When we drop cluster ordinance over a target and, predictably, uncontrollable bomblets strike residential areas and kill people, then yes, I'd say we're to blame. So would anyone unfettered by a psychotic need to absolve the US of any blame for any of its actions.
Actually I think most of you will wake up eventually because a time is coming when you'll see who the real enemy is and it will be too late but at least you'll know.
Religious fundamentalism is, and always has been, the real enemy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Faith, posted 06-04-2005 11:38 AM Faith has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 58 of 71 (214173)
06-04-2005 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Faith
06-04-2005 11:01 AM


Re: Some flabby encouragement
promote the American ideals of the greatest freedom and prosperity for all, rather than an ideological agenda.
1) Promoting American ideals is by definition promoting an ideological agenda, note the words ideal and ideology.
2) Your championing of Xianity as the basis of American gov't inherently means there will not be freedom and prosperity for all.
3) If you back capitalism then you are almost by definition against prosperity for all. Capitalism only works with some people not being prosperous.
Besides which we have other reasons to be there.
We have reasons to be everywhere and doing anything. What makes a good leader is that they choose the right issues to deal with and in the right way. Afghanistan made sense, Iraq was a blunder though hopefully something can be made of the mess.
You are judging it on an abstract principle rather than the situation of the time. If all you have to work with is tyrants, you do the best you can do with what you've got. Saddam was always evil but sometimes you have a choice only between evils.
First of all I am not basing it on an abstract. Where do you get he was the only option in that situation at the time?
Second of all what you have just said is that the ends justify the means. Why can't you stay consistent on this?
Lastly, if you hold this position then you cannot use Saddam's gassing of his own people as an example of his atrocity. It simply becomes an evil we had to choose to do, or rather he had to do and we accepted it.
I really love it when a devout Xian tells me sometimes we have to choose between two evils. I always thought there was another choice, and that was to do good? At the very least do nothing.
Times change, situations change.
Exactly, which is why we should now be allowing gay marriage.
Well, here's a list of some Democrats who agreed WMD were a real threat:
I'm not a Democrat so I'm not even going to bother looking at your list of quotes. The point I was criticizing was that there was agreement on WMDs outside the Bush administration. There was no agreement outside the Bush administration. While certainly some Dems felt that, clearly not all did, and more importantly there are many other people outside of Reps and Dems and even the US.
If your end is to depose a dictator, or de-fang a nest of terrorists, your means are going to be violent -- no contradiction there. If your end is to make a peaceful world of Communism, or a peaceful world for Allah, then there's an implicit contradiction between the end and the murdering of everybody who is of a different persuasion -- which is going to amount to millions of innocents, not your armed enemies.
The fact that you do not see the contradiction here amazes me. You simply sugar coat one and slime the other. The point of the saying "ends don't justify means" is that the means themselves can be worthy of rejection, no matter that it reaches your goal.
We have gone into Iraq and murdered both people who were wholly innocent, as well as anyone that opposed what we wanted. Maybe I can rephrase it in your words: if your end is to make a peaceful world of democracy then there's an implicit contradiction in invading nations unilaterally to overthrow their government, killing tens to hundreds of thousands of people in the process to impose a new government on them which itself will require killing all those that do not choose to be part of that imposed gov't.
There has been no change in basic motives or character, just in situations. International politics blows with the wind of necessity because there are so many different kinds of cultures and governments and personalities and mindsets that have to be taken into account. Many times there is no choice but to negotiate with evil men. Then you have to fight them when they turn on you.
Flip flop flip flop. Are you for an absolute morality and external value system or not? I love that you feel cultures must be taken into account as long as it involves killing people you happen to hate, but not when it means living alongside people within your own nation.
You think gay marriage will destroy the meaning of marriage? What have you just done to the concept of good/evil and humanity?
There is always another option than to negotiate with murderers? Isn't that what God is all about? Oh ye of little faith.
You tell me why it was necessary for us to train the men who became AQ the way we did, as well as empower Saddam once we saw he was bombing his own people.
There has been no lying. I'm sure you're convinced but this is all trumped up.
????? But there has been lies. Its been proven. Do you actually believe forgeries are not lies? Do you actually believe a person confessing that he lied to get us to invade does not indicate that there were lies made?
What's more I keep hearing the lie that I was for Saddam's atrocities, which ironically you have just defended, as well as for a weaker America.
The habit now is to denounce the character and motives of the person making the judgment and resort to the most vicious slanders. This is a very evil trend.
Yes, that is just what I said. Making lies and hyperbolic statements against those that oppose policy (or one's position) is becoming an "evil" trend. So why are you taking part in it?
I'm not for selling us out to our enemies, but that is just what you accused me of. For all this talk of lack of evidence, you are the one doing the hypothesizing. The history is there for you to look up. We supported Saddam, despite his gassing of his own people which was excused at the time by our gov't. I'm just not sure how you get around the fact that excusing an action one moment, and decrying it as an atrocity the next is hypocritical and dishonest and a giant moral flipflop.
Culpable of what? Defending ourselves? Putting our interests ahead of our enemies? Putting our sovereign interests ahead of the interests of the thugs who run the UN?
The people that don't want war for a specific set of reasons which turn out to be justified are thugs?
As far as culpability, it was of training religious zealots who we empowered over moderates, so that they could help us despite the fact that they hurt their own people... and now those zealots (rid of the first enemy) came after us.
You just argued that we have to understand that political sands shift. Then why on earth should we train foreigners how to organize and fight nations in a way that they can then fight us once we become their enemy?
And you don't even know that it is the result of decades of careful propaganda to bring down America do you? This crap is taught in our universities by our fifth column.
Bring down America how exactly? By the way, just keep loading on the personal slander, it really makes your position look pristine.
There has to be a name for this pernicious fallacy but I don't know what it is.
Well you could simply call it a mistaken comparison. The more important part is not the exact name of a fallacy, but showing what is wrong. That is what you failed to do.
Please explain what is the moral difference between Bush and OBL. I get they have different religious and political ends, but that has nothing to do with moral action.
Well, that probably explains a lot.
You mean why I'm right and you're wrong? What?
I'm not a great Bush fan myself, but his opponents are a blind and ill-willed self-righteous bunch in my opinion and unfortunately they have persuaded huge numbers of people to follow them.
You say you are not a fan of Bush yet never actually hold him to account for anything. What exactly do you not like about him?
If you are against him then you are by definition blind and ill witted blah blah blah... which by the way is called an ad hominem fallacy.
So which is it? For or against? Or do you have a "nuanced" position where you like some of the things he does and not like other things? That's my position, though I should say the bad well outweighs the good.
Personally I cannot think of a crowd more self-righteous than Bush and Co as well as OBL and Co. I already outlined my reasons. You explain the difference.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Faith, posted 06-04-2005 11:01 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Faith, posted 06-04-2005 2:13 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 62 by Faith, posted 06-04-2005 3:09 PM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 59 of 71 (214175)
06-04-2005 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Faith
06-04-2005 11:38 AM


I see, it's not the terrorists who have actually been blowing them up that have caused their deaths, it's we who are trying to defend the people -- and ourselves -- from the terrorists who are to blame. Of course.
Iraq had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11 and AQ!!!! How long does it take to get this through to you Bush apologists?
Actually I think most of you will wake up eventually because a time is coming when you'll see who the real enemy is and it will be too late but at least you'll know.
The real enemy has been and always will be militant moral and political fundamentalists. In this current generation it is mainly religious and antisexual moralists which are the enemy.
Can you explain how I tell the difference between your religion's future for the world, and the militant fundamentalist Islamic version of the future? What will be the difference to me?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Faith, posted 06-04-2005 11:38 AM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 60 of 71 (214202)
06-04-2005 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Silent H
06-04-2005 12:23 PM


Re: Some flabby encouragement
Promote the American ideals of the greatest freedom and prosperity for all, rather than an ideological agenda.
1) Promoting American ideals is by definition promoting an ideological agenda, note the words ideal and ideology.
Sorry, the root of ideology is "idea" not "ideal." Ideologies are artificial constructs that have to be imposed on reality because they don't fit. Ideals may or may not fit reality, but the American ideal is a very modest ideal of greatest freedom and prosperity for the most, not an ideology.
2) Your championing of Xianity as the basis of American gov't inherently means there will not be freedom and prosperity for all.
Biggest delusion sold you by the Left. 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.
3) If you back capitalism then you are almost by definition against prosperity for all. Capitalism only works with some people not being prosperous.
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. The surest way to guarantee poverty for America is to kill capitalism.
Besides which we have other reasons to be there.
====
We have reasons to be everywhere and doing anything. What makes a good leader is that they choose the right issues to deal with and in the right way. Afghanistan made sense, Iraq was a blunder though hopefully something can be made of the mess.
You are entitled to your opinion about the situation, but not your bashing of those who are doing these things in good faith.
You are judging it on an abstract principle rather than the situation of the time. If all you have to work with is tyrants, you do the best you can do with what you've got. Saddam was always evil but sometimes you have a choice only between evils.
======
First of all I am not basing it on an abstract. Where do you get he was the only option in that situation at the time?
ONLY option? Who said that? All I said was that supporting Saddam was a judgment call for the situation of the time. I have no idea if it was the RIGHT judgment call, but there was no MORAL failure in supporting him at the time and no hypocrisy involved in fighting him when a different situation occurred.
Second of all what you have just said is that the ends justify the means. Why can't you stay consistent on this?
No, I explained that your use of the concept is wrong. It's TERRIBLY wrong, but I don't think I've said it as well as it should be said yet.
Lastly, if you hold this position then you cannot use Saddam's gassing of his own people as an example of his atrocity. It simply becomes an evil we had to choose to do, or rather he had to do and we accepted it.
I am SURE nobody EVER "accepted" that atrocity, but were merely doing the best with a bad situation as I said.
I really love it when a devout Xian tells me sometimes we have to choose between two evils. I always thought there was another choice, and that was to do good? At the very least do nothing.
Doing good may be killing an enemy. Doing nothing might cause the death of millions.
Times change, situations change.
=====
Exactly, which is why we should now be allowing gay marriage.
Moral principles do not change. You have a habit of making fallacious comparisons and equivalences.
Well, here's a list of some Democrats who agreed WMD were a real threat:
========
I'm not a Democrat so I'm not even going to bother looking at your list of quotes. The point I was criticizing was that there was agreement on WMDs outside the Bush administration. There was no agreement outside the Bush administration. While certainly some Dems felt that, clearly not all did, and more importantly there are many other people outside of Reps and Dems and even the US.
Read the list. MOST of it was WELL outside the Bush administration, even in the Clinton administration. That was the point. And I don't give a rip what anybody outside the US thinks. Who are they to tell us what a sovereign nation should be allowed to do, especially America which has done so much for the rest of the world and DOES act in good will and good faith, contrary to the insane slanderous bashing by our enemies and our own lefties.
If your end is to depose a dictator, or de-fang a nest of terrorists, your means are going to be violent -- no contradiction there. If your end is to make a peaceful world of Communism, or a peaceful world for Allah, then there's an implicit contradiction between the end and the murdering of everybody who is of a different persuasion -- which is going to amount to millions of innocents, not your armed enemies.
=========
The fact that you do not see the contradiction here amazes me. You simply sugar coat one and slime the other. The point of the saying "ends don't justify means" is that the means themselves can be worthy of rejection, no matter that it reaches your goal.
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.
We have gone into Iraq and murdered both people who were wholly innocent, as well as anyone that opposed what we wanted.
That is an evil lie.
Maybe I can rephrase it in your words: if your end is to make a peaceful world of democracy then there's an implicit contradiction in invading nations unilaterally to overthrow their government, killing tens to hundreds of thousands of people in the process to impose a new government on them which itself will require killing all those that do not choose to be part of that imposed gov't.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Silent H, posted 06-04-2005 12:23 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Silent H, posted 06-04-2005 3:22 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 68 by jar, posted 06-04-2005 6:31 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 70 by crashfrog, posted 06-04-2005 7:07 PM Faith has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024