Quote:
It is distressing me that so many are now suddenly outraged by politics as usual because it gives them an excuse to talk shit about the antiwar croud. C'mon, let's not be so naive, how many of you who are outraged at france and russia over this would be outraged if somehow the u.s. had bribed australia or one of the other members of the coalition of the willing with favorable trade status or international aid?
|
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I personally would be outraged. As it is, I am none to happy about how our intelligence community let us down and would have preferred it if Bush had gone to war to get rid of Saddam rather than base it on less than 100% reliable information.
Quote:
You are aware that the u.s. attempts to claim moral high ground with our every action? Are you one of those, "our support of murderous regimes like uzbekistan is okay because that is what it will take to win this moral war on terrorism" types? If so you must be really distressed. I'm not trying to claim that it is morally right for france and russia to accept bribes. I don't think a moral high ground really exists in politics. I think anyone claiming the moral high ground in a political situation needs to be introduced to the word irony. In any case i still think that peace was the moral answer, and i wasn't getting any money from saddam's oil.
|
Yes, and I believe that we do try for the most part to be in the moral right with our foreign policy. But I disagree with the strategy of “the enemy of our enemy is our friend” and I would like to see that change. So, to answer the question, yes, I am also distressed about that.
But I’m curious why you don’t think a moral high ground exists in politics?
Politics like any other human endeavor has only the qualities human beings bring to it. If we bring morality to it, it will have it. Conversely, if we leave morality out of it, there will be none.
Also, are you an absolute pacifist or were you just against this particular war?