Total Members Voted: 9
Ok, Time is fluid, not static? What does that mean? Are we still at war with Great Britain? If so, is France gonna be our new b.itch? How long does it take to become static?I think I see our major disconnect. Morality is a legitimate relational for extreme action for you. It is not for me. If anything, anything in all of human existence is fluid rather than static it is morality. Consequently, using morality as a justification for an action as strong as war, i.e. killing people, changes drastically based on who and when. An awareness of the varying morality of other people is necessary in order to live with them, rather than everyone killing each other. All summed up in one word: respect.Ok, you don't like these people. Please don't kill them. Ok, you don't like this dude (D.ouche bag or not), please don't run off and kill him. Bush did not hurt my feelings, he pissed me off- along with most of the entire planet. I almost cried when no European would even touch him because they were so disgusted by his behavior. Why? Because he had no respect for anyone around him- I do what I want, f. you. I go where I want, f. you. You don't like me here, f. you. Why is Cartman a d.ick?I would rather live with men, then kill them. If morality, rather than blanket respect, is your motivator: You would rather kill men, then live with them- by definition (morality changes with time and place and group).
Stop the WWII comparison. Its ridiculous and an obvious attempt to seek legitimacy. Such a stretch, as to be totally unrelated (apples and oranges). I don't want to hear about Hitler again in a conversation about unprovoked distant invasions justified through changing (thus false) political arguments. Does an "mlk" world mean a "Martin Luther King world"? If, so- WHAT!
THERE WERE NO WMDs IN IRAQ. THE US INVADED AND CONQUERED A COUNTRY OVER FALSE PRETENSES, KILLING 100s OF 1000s OF PEOPLE. There were no wmds involved in other operations...eg we just went into libya...no wmds...you are hung up on that one area where you feel you were dupedAs to the Kurds, Blue, I'm sure they are better off. I don't begrudge them. That was my point, thank you and it's not like the USA did not have interests in the Kurdish regionBut. if you want to invade every country on the planet who mistreats weaker groups you will have to invade more countries than the 7 or so we have invaded in the past decade, several of which were severe cause horrible casualties. Helping one small group who is besieged is a poor argument for such extreme measure taken by the US considering the huge numbers of mistreated groups out there. is that another scale?....it might have been nice to help out the furs in sudan...that's a big whoops.A larger point is that helping the Kurds was an argument employed to cover the fact the original reason for invasion was a guess that turned out to be wrong, there were no WMDs in Iraq (why do I have too keep repeating this).History will forget that this was the "cover" for continuing operations after Clinton was unsuccessful..because many smart people believe that we weren't finished after first gulf war operations...because some think the cover was reason enough....the scales were tipped too heavily agains the regimes survival..and Hussein did not help his cause..after all...ha was asked to step down...genocide in the usas area where we have interests would have been enough...except for people like you and people who feel they were duped...history generally falls on the side of the oppressed...and against folks like the nazs and husseins...sorry, my man It was the Whitehouse's cop out argument You just don't like "w" s copout is your opinionwhen they figured out they f.ed up and suddenly there were 100k+ American service members in Iraq and thousands were dead. Better than saying- "whoops", I'll give you that.Cheney and w don't say whoops... they feel that the success of the people who live there"Kurds"...and replacing a murdering tyrant who is no longer a threat to the region IS success, sorry you feel different