Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
The volumes of evidence that you choose to overlook, in order to preserve your opinion, and the fact that your argument is in conflict with Bush's own definition of who is complicit, are indications that the U.S., under the leadership of GW Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, was hardly the moral arbiter of who should be "targeted" and pre-empted.
|
You read too much into the basis of my opinion. We obviously approach the evalution of complicated issues differently. My principles are the basis for my views. I do tend to ignore or discount information that is inconsistent with my principles (I am not suggesting my principles are better or worse than anyone elses, mine are mine and yours are yours). So before I can understand you or for you to understand me we have to understand each others guiding principles. That is why I ask general questions about responsibility, justice, consequences, etc.
On your other points in this quote. My position is mine, I don't always agree with Bush.
I am not concerned about the morality in pre-empted acts. I think power determines who the arbiter is, and pre-emptive acts and targets are determined by those with power or those seeking power. The fight for power is never ending. If one has power it will be lost unless defended. And if one has power one has to send a message (pre-emptive occationally) to those who want to take it.
Quote:
|
... what looks to me like illegal war of aggression, refute the reports that back my opinion...or stop your flawed defense of war criminals and their crimes.....
|
To understand my point of view you have to understand that those who hold power determine what is legal or illegal. Legality is a relative term. So based on my view in general terms it is not possible for the US to conduct an illegal war of aggression. You are correct, your facts won't change my mind. We are currently the world's leader, and we define what is legal or not. When people like Sadaam lead the world they will determine what is legal. In the meantime, anytime we respond militarily in my view I justify it as defending our power, defending our children's right to power in the future.
If you don't think you/we are in a constant fight for power, I don't know how to converse with you.
Quote:
|
aceventura3, tell me why the U.S. was not responsible for "harboring or supporting terrorism", when it continued to supply Saddam with materials and military advice that could be used against Iraq's neighbors and the rest of the world, even after "he gassed his own people", using chemical and bilogical agents banned by international treaty (The U.S. even sold Saddam the crop dusting Bell helicopters and provided the training related to disperse the gas that was used on the Kurds)...and went right on signifigantly supporting and advising him until at least the day he invaded Kuwait. The excuse that he was supported because he countered our enemy, Iran, seems to wither when Reagan began secretly supplying Iran with anit-tank missles and militarily useful replacement parts, knowing that it would strengthen Iran's resistance to Saddam countering it's (Iran's) military power......</b>
|
On a general level we lead the world and we have to take responsibility of what happens on this planet. On a specific level each individual has to take responsibility for thier own actions. In my view we can be guilty of supporting Sadaam, but not be responsible for his actions.
On a general level, I think we spend to much energy trying to make everyone happy. So you get a guy like Sadaam who says if you help me do "a", I will be nice and I will help you do "b". Then by helping him do "a" you have also helped him do "c" which was counter to "b". We should have just said you help with "b", period.
Quote:
|
WTF....aceventura3...where can you possibly come up with a legitimate justification for the U.S. to avoid being determined to be a rogue nation,
|
If you think the US is a "rogue" nation, I would think you would be activly working to overthrow the government, or at least get the President and Congress out of office. Congress voted for the use of force, they are complicit as are many other countries. Also, didn't the UN authorize the use of force? Given all that perhaps a better question is: what is your definition of rogue nation?