man eff you guys all busy tryin to be poly-sci majors, we shouldnt kill other people ever. what else can you say?

NerblyBear wrote:
What a ridiculous, side-stepping approach to answering my simple question.

There is no question in your previous post for me to answer.

You are the one insisting that the dominating issue is Bush's motivation. Or at least that is what your post said. My hypothetical addresses that.

You have to get beyond your personal antipathy against Bush, and see the larger issues here. Even if Bush is primarily a war profiteer (and I don't think he is), that still doesn't prove the war isn't the right thing to do.

We are speaking the only language al Qaeda understands...force.

galanter wrote:

Linus Van Pelt wrote:Phil,

Would you say we should or should not be worried about al Qaeda destroying our solar system?

I would say we should be worried about al Qaeda destroying our ability to enjoy the solar system.

I would have thought that that would be a pretty simple question to answer, but I guess you have your own reasons for not wanting to answer it. But I will infer from your response that you're not worried about al Qaeda destroying our solar system. If this inference is correct, all I can say is it's too bad that you think al Qaeda poses a "trivial threat." I guess you feel the threat they represent is "overstated." I didn't take you for an "apologist for terrorism." How sadly wrong I was.

galanter wrote:

NerblyBear wrote:
What a ridiculous, side-stepping approach to answering my simple question.

There is no question in your previous post for me to answer.

You are the one insisting that the dominating issue is Bush's motivation. Or at least that is what your post said. My hypothetical addresses that.

You have to get beyond your personal antipathy against Bush, and see the larger issues here. Even if Bush is primarily a war profiteer (and I don't think he is), that still doesn't prove the war isn't the right thing to do.

We are speaking the only language al Qaeda understands...force.

Well, I'll go ahead and formulate the question that was implicit anyway: If the administration's goals in the war have nothing to do with fighting terrorism, then why should we justify such a patently illegal and unethical operation?

I'm not insisting that the dominating issue is Bush's motivation. Bush has no motivation, in my opinion, other than to speak the lines his handlers give him, like a parrot on the shoulder of a street vendor. I do see the larger issues.

First of all, since Bush is a war profiteer, his approach is fundamentally unethical. Killing tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, putting the lives of our kids on the line, and flagrantly alienating the entire world community is not something that should ever be done unless one can provide a true, air-tight case that it is absolutely necessary.

We are, indeed, speaking the language of force, and, in that way, we are sinking to the very level of the Al Qaeda terrorists.

Exxon makes 1 trillion in profits. $20 a barrel goes up to $75 a barrel. Civil liberties are violated left and right. The American people are sold lies on a continual basis and they lap them up like they're Skittles. I'd say the administration has accomplished exactly what they set out to accomplish.

"I'd say the administration has accomplished exactly what they set out to accomplish."

As well as the terrorists

clocker bob wrote:Unregulated capitalism flat out kills more people or slowly drains the life out of them than any other ideology. Kills hope, promotes fear, kills resources.

I will contend that a life working in an Indian rug factory or a Chinese slave labor camp is a misery equal to a quick death in some US skyscraper.

Dude, you need to grow up.

matthew wrote:

clocker bob wrote:Unregulated capitalism flat out kills more people or slowly drains the life out of them than any other ideology. Kills hope, promotes fear, kills resources.

I will contend that a life working in an Indian rug factory or a Chinese slave labor camp is a misery equal to a quick death in some US skyscraper.

Dude, you need to grow up.

Said the guy who believes that all aspects of human morality are governed by a little book written by an imaginary man in the sky.

NerblyBear wrote:Well, I'll go ahead and formulate the question that was implicit anyway: If the administration's goals in the war have nothing to do with fighting terrorism, then why should we justify such a patently illegal and unethical operation?

We are both repeating ourselves at this point.

I believe the administration's goals are exactly fighting terrorism. The first round in this recent war was taking down the Taliban and exterminating al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and there was no oil to be had there.

I disagree that in the big picture using force to fight terrorists is either illegal or unethical. It's self-defense, and self-defense is a long accepted activity.

There may be individual incidents long the way that are illegal or unethical...rapes, tortures, intentional and avoidable killing of civilians...these should be punished and seem to come with every war...some degree of criminality exists in any collection of humans.

But these lesser crimes do not change the big picture. There are terrorists who work everyday to find a way to kill *you*...and I think killing them first is a fine idea.

galanter wrote:

NerblyBear wrote:Well, I'll go ahead and formulate the question that was implicit anyway: If the administration's goals in the war have nothing to do with fighting terrorism, then why should we justify such a patently illegal and unethical operation?

We are both repeating ourselves at this point.

I believe the administration's goals are exactly fighting terrorism. The first round in this recent war was taking down the Taliban and exterminating al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and there was no oil to be had there.

This is not correct. I mean, it's technically correct, as far as I know. But when you look at where a whole lot of oil is and when you look at how to get it to the USA, Afghanistan starts to look very strategic. Now, you can say that this was not the reason for the war, and that's fine, but you can't say there's nothing there.

I disagree that in the big picture using force to fight terrorists is either illegal or unethical.

With whom exactly do you disagree on this point? Not NerblyBear, at least not the way I'm reading his post.

It's self-defense, and self-defense is a long accepted activity.

There may be individual incidents long the way that are illegal or unethical...rapes, tortures, intentional and avoidable killing of civilians...these should be punished and seem to come with every war...some degree of criminality exists in any collection of humans.

But these lesser crimes do not change the big picture. There are terrorists who work everyday to find a way to kill *you*...and I think killing them first is a fine idea.

Again, who doesn't?

Linus Van Pelt wrote:

matthew wrote:

clocker bob wrote:Unregulated capitalism flat out kills more people or slowly drains the life out of them than any other ideology. Kills hope, promotes fear, kills resources.

I will contend that a life working in an Indian rug factory or a Chinese slave labor camp is a misery equal to a quick death in some US skyscraper.

Dude, you need to grow up.

Said the guy who believes that all aspects of human morality are governed by a little book written by an imaginary man in the sky.