Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
so, you will not answer either question?
I have to assume that there was nothing in Powell's presentation to the UN (it is irrelevant what you think of the UN....that was the opportunity for the US to build a coalition and to persuade the security council to vote for a resolution that would have made an invasion and occupation of Iraq lawful.)
Powell's presentation sits displayed on the white house official website. It was supposed to be the prima facie "case" for war with Iraq, for the American people to examine, as well as the rest of the world. Did you even bother to click on the white house link?
What does this mean?
<h3>Can you describe anything from Powell's "whole presentation" of 02/05/03 that was an actual "imminent threat" posed by Iraq, that rose to the level of a response of aggressive war, by the Bush administration?</h3>
Do you agree that "aggressive war"...attacking another country not in self defense due to a prior attack on your country, by the targeted country, or because of overwhelming evidence of an imminent threat to your country's national security, was condemned at Nuremberg because, in the absence of such an ominous threat or of a prior attack, war is not justifiable.
|
Again with the links. I didn't click on it now, but I did years ago when it was actually relevant. And you seem determined to prove my point about how discussions are commonly framed here. Your last section clearly starts as a question ("Do you agree") but ends up being merely a statement. So I ask you, do you agree that domestic violence, something the vast majority of people find despicable, therefore, you should stop beating your wife and turn yourself in to the police for your crimes against women.
The reason Bush's pre-emptive war/aggressive war doctrine is illega, a crime against humanity, is borne out by the very outcome of the invasion of Iraq. It is revealed to be unjustified, there were no WMD, and no Iraqi relationship with al-Qaeda. It is akin to a cop shooting an unarmed suspect, what is described in police work as a "bad shoot".
All you have to do is point us to something in Powell's presentation that turned out to describe an actual imminent threat to US national security (or to Israel's) that justified invading and occupying Iraq, and I'll post that you have prevailed in your argument....[/quote]
Cite the "law" that makes Bush's invasion "illegal". And many unarmed suspects are justifiably shot (even if someone were to accept your parallel, which I don't). Your displeasure doesn't make something illegal. Violating a law makes something illegal. I don't have to do anything. The fact that Iraq was invaded is the proof.
Quote:
My experience of not finding anyone who does not accept a legitimate government role and responsibility to resdistribute wealth, if only to lessen the chances of civil unrest in response to wealth inequity, is unchanged after your post.
The wealthiest ten percent in the US own 70 percent of all US assets. If their share increases to say....85 percent, do you offer any proposals to reverse their consolidation of wealth? The trend toward greater wealth inequity has progressed in that direction since the early 1970's, and you'll let it run until riots break out? That does not seem reasonable, or a practical view.
|
Why should your view be changed? I don't think there is ANY argument that would make you change your views. And personally, I don't really care. You are proving my point for me. You didn't even bother to read what I said. You simply reposted what you said before. So, I'll also repeat what I said:
NOT EVERYONE THINKS THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH
Many people think the redistribution of wealth (especially in the absence of the widespread catastrophe you seem to be prediction) is akin to a preemptive war. And there are people who think that even rioting would not warrant such actions.
And the humorous thing is that I clearly said
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by myself
And many of those people believe that if inequalities in wealth arise, that is a fair price to pay to maximize total economic output. I do not personally agree with this, but there are many that do.
|
Again, the lack of ability to even consider any viewpoint other than your own I think has greatly contributed to the lack of heated debate. I am able to understand, and even (albeit casually) attempt to defend A VIEWPOINT I CLEARLY STATE IS NOT MY OWN. And despite that I clearly say I don't believe that view, you seem to address your next post as if I DO agree with that viewpoint. Some people apparently cannot even be bothered to fully read any response to what they type before regurgitating their opinions back.
Although I do think that the inequality in the country is a serious issue, I can still have a discussion with people who don't believe that. That is something that I think many here have a great deal of difficulty in doing.