Originally posted by StarValleyWyWhere do you get this stuff? Because I wanted Saddam removed in a manner that accorded with international law, that minimized the loss of civilian life and maximized the chance of a successful democracy being brought about in Iraq, I support Saddam. You equate a critique of unilateralism and the utilizing of imprecise military efforts with supporting Saddam. That's just silly.
An evil act is one like you perpetrate. You have full knowledge of 'moral correctness' and choose to support 'continued chaos'. See supporting Saddaam.
Your phrase "One that is merely 'Morally wrong, wanton, cruel etc.' " is in your head and the heads of all who want to corrupt civilization, ie, eggheads with no clue of being human. The rest ...[text shortened]... you never considered that, did you? So much for the great religion of educational ineptitude.
How does my thinking that Saddam's acts were morally wrong, and that he ought to die for his crimes equate to 'getting a kick out of his multi-million murders'? Please try to keep up.
If 'morally wrong, wanton and cruel' is 'evil', and if, as I claimed, I think the first types of acts exist, then I must think evil acts exist as well, correct? My problem isn't with the concept of evil, if it is understood in this way. My problem, as I've stated above, is with the use of the term in political rhetoric, and the way it tends to make people stop thinking critically.
So much for the educational merit of the school of hard knocks. This old, and you can't follow a simple argument.
If I may answer ianpickering amongst the bickering of the three others while trying to get back on the subject here....
On Blair -
Is not spin and news management the core of politics?
He does get hammered for that at the dispatch box I've noticed but he handles it well.
You are right that Blair is straying from the core of the labour party's base ideology, but my understanding is that is what he ran on. I have had the impression that he has followed Clinton's image of "new labor/democrat" in which being a centralist who delivers the social programs but with fiscal conservatism in mind. They have known this all along, and the University debate follows this path without any deviation. As long as the Lib Dems are the major third party the Labor party needs to keep a distinction lest they fall into a trap they have always been trying to avoid - a connection between the two parties which allows Conservatives to link the two and compare Labour to the more radical of the parties.
>>>>>
As for your system - is it the case that the American public voted for Bush
knowing that he is only a figurehead with others behind him making policies that they agree with and pulling the strings?
>>>>
That is exactly it. I had made a longer post on this but the system cut it short so I'll try to make this attempt short and sweet.
In the general election the Democrat and the Republican are guarenteed 42% of the votes each. So the field is reduced to %16 of the voting populace.
Of that voting populace, all but 2-3% are aligned with a specific party. The middle group will vote either way when the candidate is strong, but in general they have philosophical ideals that fall primarily in line with either particular party.
Under George Bush, the candidacy became a party candidacy rather than a candidate one. Bush is revered at near-Reagan levels among the rank-and-file party members because of his "de-centralized" (others may call it being a figurehead) approach. Now, the idealogues can have their way - there is no one individual who may crumble to pressure, because the pressure would have to be applied across the spectrum rather than to one individual (the president.)
This also favors the Republicans for the election. By turning the playing field into a party-vs.-party battle -- which Gore's incompetency allowed (as chancremechanic outlined on pages 3 and 4) -- the Republicans turned it into a battle of 2-3 percent. The Republicans are unquestionably better organized than the Democrats. From local government all the way up, the Republicans are masterfully organized. As long as the party is the issue instead of the candidate, the Republicans can win with anyone.
>>>>Am I right in thinking that a majority of Americans believe that Saddam Hussain had something to do with the attack on the trade centre? If so on what basis? Because Bush told them so? Because they find it hard to understand anything that goes on outside their own shores. Please help me here. <<<<
No, none, no, yes, because while the argument doesn't matter the war won't be an issue as long as they're out by June which Bush has promised. 9/11 was a bigger issue but they addressed that with Afghanistan. The election in 2004 will be about the economy and a few domestic issues. Dean will get through the primaries on the war but those two issues he will have to win to unseat Bush.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyRead your original post, StarValley. You asked me who it was that founded Human Rights Watch. You claimed the founders were Commies. You were wrong. The current executive director of Human Rights Watch is also not a Commie, he got involved in the organization because of his opposition to Poland's 1981 declaration of Maritial Law, a declaration made to "defend socialism", particularly against the rise of labor unions who were organizing for better working conditions, etc. So, not only the founders, but also the current director oppose just the sort of totalitarianism found in Soviet style Communism.
No. Because it was taken over and is now run by who? Speaking of worn out Commies.
ps... love your use of "originally". Very adroit. Or if you hate France... very 'cunning'.
Really, you're ought of your depth here. You ought to check your facts before you rant, else you end up looking like an idiot.
Originally posted by StarValleyWylol. Yes, the Human Rights Watch secret police are watching you, StarValley. After they have slaughtered the poor bastards from Amnesty International, they'll be coming for you. 🙄
If you want to dominate and control all human rights activity on the planet... and kill millions with your secret police ... then call yourself "Human Rights Watch".
Originally posted by bbarrAn international law that tolerated... nay.. applauded murder? An international law that said "you will comply" and then failed to act? An international law that consists of an organization ... half of whose members are dictators? An international law put forth by whom? An organization that wants to force Americans into the world court... thus abridging and nullifying our "Bill Of Rights"? The same Bill that is the ONLY DOCUMENT ON THE EARTH THAT SPEAKS FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS as opposed to the RIGHT S OF GOVERNMENT?
Where do you get this stuff? Because I wanted Saddam removed in a manner that accorded with international law, that minimized the loss of civilian life and maximized the chance of a successful democracy being brought about in Iraq, I support Saddam. You equate a critique of unilateralism and the utilizing of imprecise military efforts with supporting Saddam. ...[text shortened]... cational merit of the school of hard knocks. This old, and you can't follow a simple argument.
That "International Law"? The one that supported Saddam? That one?
I thought so. What is your next argument? You love Saddam? You love genecide? What? That is all you are supporting by opposing Bush.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyAgreeing with you,
An international law that tolerated... nay.. applauded murder? An international law that said "you will comply" and then failed to act? An international law that consists of an organization ... half of whose members are dictators? An international law put forth by whom? An organization that wants to force Americans into the world court... thus abridgi ...[text shortened]... ment? You love Saddam? You love genecide? What? That is all you are supporting by opposing Bush.
Thats exacty why we attacked saddam was because international law wasnt working.
at Bbarr - how many more Hundereds of thousends of Iraqis do you think Saddam would have killed during the years/decades it would have taken following international law if it even worked.
Originally posted by bbarrCute again. But stupid as always. LOL up you a**. Don't even joke about your damned secret police. I can easily envision you as a Colonel in such. You fit the profile.
lol. Yes, the Human Rights Watch secret police are watching you, StarValley. After they have slaughtered the poor bastards from Amnesty International, they'll be coming for you. 🙄
Originally posted by bbarrI will let those who want to know this issue... research it on their own. How is that for fair? You say "I am wrong". I say you are full of shi*!
Read your original post, StarValley. You asked me who it was that founded Human Rights Watch. You claimed the founders were Commies. You were wrong. The current executive director of Human Rights Watch is also not a Commie, he got involve ...[text shortened]... your facts before you rant, else you end up looking like an idiot.
Again I applaud your effort to hide the truth by saying "Current". Can you spell "Puppet"?
Come on people. Dig it out. Show this commie that you can actually think! Find ONE SINGLE ISSUE on the web where they (Human Rights Watch) come down on the side of the INDIVIDUAL AS OPPOSED TO THE (communal) STATE in a search on the net... search for "Human Rights Watch"... Don't forget that everything you are reading is paid for by professional writers and propagandists like bbar and rwingett. They actually enjoy tearing down civilization.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyThis is from the Constitution:
An international law that tolerated... nay.. applauded murder? An international law that said "you will comply" and then failed to act? An international law that consists of an organization ... half of whose members are dictators? An international law put forth by whom? An organization that wants to force Americans into the world court... thus abridgi ...[text shortened]... ment? You love Saddam? You love genecide? What? That is all you are supporting by opposing Bush.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"
Two of the agreements made by the U.S. were to abide by the UN Charter and the Nueremberg Charter. Both these Charters were violated by Bush's intiating a war against Iraq. Hence, Bush's actions are unconstitutional.
The International Declaration of Human Rights is also a document. It also speaks of the rights of individuals. Hence your claim that the Bill of Rights is the only document on Earth that speaks for individual rights is false.
If we were really serious about liberating the oppressed, removing dictators from power, and providing a foundation for other countries to develop democratic institutions, we could have supported the UN's international declaration of human rights, we could put our might behind international courts to try despots, war criminals, and other human rights abusers, we could have backed up the UN's weapon inspectors back in 1998 instead of contributing to their withdrawl. We could cease being the largest arms dealer in the middle east. There are any number of things we could have, and still could do to support the oppressed throughout the middle east and the world. Specifically, in the case of Iraq, we could have not crippled the populus with a decade of economic sanctions that made it impossible for them to organize any sort of internal resistance to Saddam Hussein's regime.
Originally posted by bbarrOk. We abide by the "law" as you see it. Stalin is great. (Lawfull UN member) Murder is great. See Stalin, Mao... etc... all "Lawfull" Saddam is great. (condemned as not so, but defended by bbar) So? You are evil. Supports mass murder. It is lawfull if the UN supports it. So? I will not get off issue. You think that "Law" is greater than "Getting away with murder". Good for you. You prove my point. You don't even acknowledge that "Evil" exits. So? You are the definition of evil. "All you have to do to let evil triumph is to do nothing." You do nothing. I do something. I make fun of fools who "worship" evil in the name of academia. You are that evil I oppose. So? Let the reader decide. That is good enough for me.
This is from the Constitution:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme L ...[text shortened]... ize any sort of internal resistance to Saddam Hussein's regime.
And your views of the world law are a joke. Only a worn out commie could view the removal of a commie dictator... Sadaam ... as a bad thing. If not... Why? Why Bennet do you support him? Do you lay awake at nights dreaming of killing american soldiers? I'll bet you do.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyNo, StarValley, Stalin isn't great and neither is murder. This is what I've been trying to tell you. Murders by dictators are wrong, and so are murders by cluster bombs.
Ok. We abide by the "law" as you see it. Stalin is great. (Lawfull UN member) Murder is great. See Stalin, Mao... etc... all "Lawfull" Saddam is great. (condemned as not so, but defended by bbar) So? You are evil. Supports mass mu ...[text shortened]... ights dreaming of killing american soldiers? I'll bet you do.
No, StarValley, Saddam isn't great either. That is another thing I've been trying to tell you.
No, StarValley, I don't think Law is greater than murder. Indeed, I don't even know what that means. I do think that we need the law to govern relations between nations, and that we ought to abide by our agreements. I think the law becomes especially important when dealing with things like mass murder. It prevents us from the excesses that harm innocents, and makes us as individuals accountable for our actions.
No, StarValley, I'm not the definition of evil. We've already arrived at a definition of evil a few posts above this one. Please, try to pay attention.
No, StarValley, I do not 'do nothing' in the face of evil. Rather I try to oppose it in the most humane way possible.
StarValley, I'm not a Communist, I'm a Liberalist. Saddam wasn't a Communist either, although he was dictator. Not all dictators are Communists, StarValley. I think you have an issue with Communism, do you lay awake at night wondering if they are under your bed?
Finally, StarValley, you ignorant ass, I don't wish harm on US Soldiers. Many of them are just children, barely out of High School, and the majority of them believe they are doing the right thing. I wish them a safe return.
Originally posted by bbarrWhich do you like best then... two million by Saddam or a thousand by cluster bombs? Answer please. There is one by default and one by action. Is inaction, ie, Sadaam your preference? Why?
No, StarValley, Stalin isn't great and neither is murder. This is what I've been trying to tell you. Murders by dictators are wrong, and so are murders by cluster bombs.
No, StarValley, Saddam isn't great either. That is another th ...[text shortened]... y are doing the right thing. I wish them a safe return.
I'll tell you what "Law is greater than murder" means... It means that you prefer murder (see Sadaams millions murdered) to action. See cluster bombs.
I don't believe that laws between nations have meaning. A pact with a dictator... (see UN) has no meaning. We need to get out and out fast.
The reason is that you and your UN supported murderers were/are letting Saddam (and 30 other killer dictators) continue his/their mass murder.
Under my bed? You? Not if you are smart. Won't come out without "great loss of blood". <wink>
You are not an ignorant ass. You are a fully informed agent of evil. You just live to see them die. You know it and so does everyone else with half a brain. As to them being innocents... You are just a total jerk. You will never hold a candle to the youngest of them. They are ten times more worldly and smarter than you. You pig. Fight for Sadaam and dare to invoke them as children. You pig. Utter... complete... pig.
I will answer for them.. Go to hell. You and your death loving cult of evil. Go to hell.
bbarr, you are a patient man, the epitomy of grace under pressure. You counter the ravings of a silly, silly man with thought and sound arguments. But there's no reasoning with people like this. It's a hopeless case.
The purpose of the armed forces is to defend the United States of America as a last resort against any who would harm it. Was Iraq a threat to the U.S.? That's highly debatable, but let's say it's possible they did pose a threat to us. It was at most a threat held firmly in check. Could that threat have been degraded or eliminated by continued diplomacy and greater follow through on resolutions? Absolutely. But the Bush Administration decided to take a course of action that has instead led to the deaths of nearly 500 U.S. soldiers, not to mention their allied brothers. And that number will unfortunately continue to grow.
You see, this is what a true patriot believes: He believes American soldiers deserve reverence for the courage they show in accepting the responsibility of their duties. He believes we owe a debt of gratitude to all those who have fought and died to maintain our freedom. And above all else he believes that the leadership of this country has the grave responsibility, the grave duty, to risk these people's lives only when there is a severe threat to our country and no other option exists. This was not the case in Iraq. The Bush Administration has acted irresponsibly, unwisely, and, as bbarr has already argued, unconstitutionally. The Bush Administration is directly responsible for the unnecessary deaths of Americans and the grief bestowed on their families.
Is war sometimes necessary, unavoidable? Of course. But StarValley would apparently have American soldiers dying all over the world. Where would you have us off to next? North Korea? Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, etc. etc. etc.?? Insane.
Was Hussein a brutal, heartless dictator..."evil" if you have to put it that way? Of course. Is it terrible that so many Iraqis have lived and died as they have? Yes. But regime change in order to save Iraqis is not why the American armed forces exist, it's not why young men and women sign up to serve. (Obviously the welfare of Iraqis has nothing to do with why Bush took the course he did, but that's the only "argument" that has been laid out in previous posts.)
And are you really serious about this communist crap? Over the top man, over the top. Ever heard of facism? Your philosophy treads dangerously near my friend, dangerously near.
Back to the original point of the thread...Bush the worst? I don't know about that, but he's pretty damned bad.
Originally posted by bbarrHey, everyone who disagrees or looks at SVY in a funny way is a commie by default.
Read your original post, StarValley. You asked me who it was that founded Human Rights Watch. You claimed the founders were Commies. You were wrong. The current executive director of Human Rights Watch is also not a Commie, he got involved in the organization because of his opposition to Poland's 1981 declaration of Maritial Law, a declaration made to "d ...[text shortened]... epth here. You ought to check your facts before you rant, else you end up looking like an idiot.
Oops...
I think StarValley is actually J. Edgar Hoover in disguise!!!!!
As for this simplistic view of GWB, and apparently SVY: "you're either with us or against us" makes a mockery of everything that the "Free World" (sic.) stands for. It is perfectly reasonable to have the same goals, but differ over how one should go about achieving them. Surely this is the purpose of free speech. Suggesting that people who disagree with Bush's policies are by default commies or support mass-murderers quite frankly suggests SVY is a lot stupider than I used to give him credit for, was just in a REALLY bad mood about that dog pissing on his bed, or just likes winding up people and playing Devils Advocate.
Mark