View Single Post
Old 02-03-2004, 11:38 PM   #48 (permalink)
Lebell
Cracking the Whip
 
Lebell's Avatar
 
Location: Sexymama's arms...
Quote:
This will be my last post in this thread, I've got midterms to deal with and you are just arguing in circles without intent to listen to my actual words.

Here's an example of how you create a false archtype in your head of my belief system, then later argue I'm not being consistent when I don't abide by the construct you created:

I state that I'm not going to express righteous indignation at anyone because foreign leaders aren't beholden to me and, regardless, righteousness is a relgious term.

Somehow this bounces around in your head and comes out like this:

quote:
Originally posted by Lebell
As you’ve pointed out, you have no problem that foreign governments have their own interests at heart.


Based on that twist of my statement, you ask me this:
quote:
Why then is it ok for others to work for their interests while we don’t work for ours?


So now I have to reiterate myself or risk being labeled as inconsistent. Here goes:

I didn't say I condoned the behavior of leaders in foreign nations--just that I'm not going to take a religious/moral highground stance against them.

They don't share my belief system and aren't even supposed to representative of it--unlike the leaders in my country.
Thank you for a great example of the kind of strawman argument I’ve come to expect from you.

Quote:
From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Main Entry: righ·teous
Pronunciation: 'rI-ch&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: alter. of earlier rightuous, alteration of Middle English rightwise, rightwos, from Old English rihtwIs, from riht, noun, right + wIs wise
1 : acting in accord with divine or moral law : free from guilt or sin
2 a : morally right or justifiable <a righteous decision> b : arising from an outraged sense of justice or morality <righteous indignation>
3 slang : GENUINE, GOOD
In otherwords, argue with the definition of a word instead of the intent. And you still didn’t answer my question about whether or not you also passed moral judgement on Blair, Chiraq, et al.

Quote:

I also didn't say my country's leaders shouldn't persue the interest of my nation. What I did say is that the people weren't told the truth so they could deduce whether our current actions really are in the best interest of our nation. Many people who follow geopolitics closely realize that our current course of action isn't in our long term interest.
Your opinion, not fact.

What is closer to the fact is that Bush and Blair probably told the truth as they understood it from the intelligence community. Or should I dig out the quotes from the Clintons, Gore, etc. saying the exact same thing, that Saddam was a very real threat to the U.S.?

Quote:
Whatever else may happen in the long term, it ought to be fairly obvious that neither the Iraqis nor the US public is benefitting in the short term. Corporations, in contrast, are benefitting from what is going on. So if you are the CEO of a major corporation, I'm confused how you can construe the current activities as being in your "best interest."
Again, your opinion.

If you are accusing me of watching too much CNN, perhaps you better check your own viewing habits.

I continue to maintain that Iraq is better off and that vast strides have been made to restore the country. Religious freedom is a reality, power levels are up beyond pre-war levels, schools and hospitals are being rebuilt as is the rest of the country’s infrastructure. And it is very likely that the US will turn over control of the government to the Iraqis sometime this year.

All this less than a year after the war started.

Now I know this is hard for our 30 second sound bite society to understand, but this is actually happening very fast.

It took us something like 20 years or more to turn over control to Japan and Germany (sorry, don’t remember the exact numbers). Heck, we are STILL in Germany.

So, yes, I think things are better right now for Iraq.

As to corporations profiting, Fina-Total was set to make several billion dollars profit so long as Saddam stayed in power, as were German and Russian firms. So to argue that corporations are profiting, strikes me as non-sensical.
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!
Lebell is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360