Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Which is why the liberals march in lockstep when this administration wants to sacrifice civil liberties in the war on terror..

The War on Terror is upholding all of the individuals most important rights, to life and liberty. Don't confuse the adjustments of our laws guaranteeing those rights with anything less.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Liberals are all about subordinating individual rights to the common good.

Exactly. My property rights are unfairly subordinated on a daily basis to the unjust confiscation by the demos tax man, supposedly for the common good, but for the most part I fail to see it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
A moral relativist might say that in Arab countrys these rights are not part of their culture so it is both arrogant and naive to think that we can impose a system to protect these rights. Hello Ty.

Ty might say that you shouldn't try to haphazardly change a culture, since government doesn't do that well. You might call this the "conservative" position.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
D'oh!

Then why the liberals continue to manifest the hollow ideology of moral relativism (your blanket apology notwithstanding)????

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Ty might say that you shouldn't try to haphazardly change a culture, since government doesn't do that well. You might call this the "conservative" position.

But the point that you are missing is that all peoples, even the Arabs et al, desire freedom and the ability to exercise their God given natural rights. In the Iraqis and other Arabs' case, certain oppressors are denying them that freedom. We are delivering it unto them. there is no cultural imposition, it is application and defense of the UMC.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Ty might say that you shouldn't try to haphazardly change a culture, since government doesn't do that well. You might call this the "conservative" position.

Ps: What would Ty@51 say?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Yes, I was. I think you have an incredibly simplistic view of the world, ethics, politics, and polite discourse. You appear to see the world in completely didactic terms, and you regularly argue either side of the coin if it suits your purpose without the slightest evidence that you are even aware you were asserting the polar opposite the day before.

You may be a very nice guy. You are certainly a very committed guy. I applaud your dedication to the application of your beliefs, and you seem in general, to be a pretty easygoing person as long as you are not challenged.

OK - but you are giving me way too much credit. But that is probably because you don't know me very well. Ask Sidd. He will straighten you out.

Originally posted by taxwonk
But I also believe you are a maroon.

Sorry.

Is this a bad thing?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
OK



Is this a bad thing?

Not really (although I don't know why he used an antiquated and politically not-so-correct term to call you black, are you black? If so, I still don't know why it is relevant), unless you call Kleagle Byrd your leader, then I suppose it would be.

Webster's says:


cimarron wild, unruly, from cima the summit of a mountain; hence, negro cimarron a runaway negro that lives in the mountains.] In the West Indies and Guiana, a fugitive slave, or a free negro, living in the mountains.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
The War on Terror is upholding all of the individuals most important rights, to life and liberty.

"We had to destroy the village in order to save it."

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
"We had to destroy the village in order to save it."

We had to remove the oppression over the village in order to set its people free.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
But the point that you are missing is that all peoples, even the Arabs et al, desire freedom and the ability to exercise their God given natural rights. In the Iraqis and other Arabs' case, certain oppressors are denying them that freedom. We are delivering it unto them. there is no cultural imposition, it is application and defense of the UMC.

OK. And yet, the whole experiment of changing their culture doesn't seem to be working out so well. It turns out, e.g., that Sunnis are more interested in Sunni power than in western-style democracy. Who could have known?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
OK. And yet, the whole experiment of changing their culture doesn't seem to be working out so well. It turns out, e.g., that Sunnis are more interested in Sunni power than in western-style democracy. Who could have known?

They are now free to come to that decision, of course, what they are learning is that with freedom comes responsibility. In time, with our assistance they will come to exercise that responsibility in a moral way.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Ps: What would Ty@51 say?

If Hank is still up, maybe we'll find out.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
There isn't a lot of difference a government killing its own people and people getting killed in a war.You can call it collateral damage if you want, but it still boils down to killing innocents.

So there is no difference between the US sending soliders into WWII where some of them forseably died, and the government intentionally infecting black men with syphillis (which they knew would could them - the Tuskegee experiement) for a study.

Pretty much the same thing?

Originally posted by taxwonk
Sometimes that killing is acceptable. It was acceptable in WWII because of the fact that Hitler was practicing genocide.

I agree. I think getting rid of Stalin would have justified killing millions of innocent Russians, just like getting rid of Hitler justified the killing of millions of Germans.

Originally posted by taxwonk
Of course, we didn't get into WWII because Hitler was practicing genocide. We, meaning the upper levels of military and civilian government knew it was going on, but they didn't think it was worth getting involved in. We got into WWII because of Pearl Harbor, and the fact that Germany declared war on us after we declared war on Japan.

I think FDR wanted to get us in even before he knew about the Genocide. I think FDR thought Kryselnacht and the invasion of Poland was enough to justify going to war agaisnt Germany. Unfortubately the rest of the US was not as enlightened.

Originally posted by taxwonk
I also don't think it was a bad thing that Saddam was deposed. Had Bush I done it in 92 when we were driving him out of Kuwait, I would have wholeheartedly supported that. But he didn't.

I think he didn't because he was too caught up into UN mandates. He also assumed that the insurgency would take Saddam out.

Originally posted by taxwonk
Bush II also didn't depose Saddam because he was killing off thousands of his own citizens and trying to exterminate the Kurds.

I think that was part of it.

Originally posted by taxwonk
In fact, we've stood by for decades as Iran, Iraq, and Turkey have all tried to eradicate the Kurds.

That is what happens when you have moral relativists sitting around saying that we can not be the policemen of the world, we can't shove western values down other peoples throats, and if innocent people died when we were trying to stop the genocide that would be just as bad as the genocide.

Originally posted by taxwonk
W went into Iraq because he was getting his ass kicked by the press for failing to get Bin Laden. He needed a diversion. That's why we went into Iraq. And killing people because you need to boost your poll ratings isn't true or just or right. It's cynical, dishonest, and borders on the criminal. I say borders because I'm not aware of an existing statute that would expressly fit this situation.

I disagree with this assumption altough I do agree that killing people to boost your polls is a truly despicable act. I don't think Bush did that, but he did he would be a truly awful person.

Originally posted by taxwonk
As I said yesterday, right war, wrong time, wrong reasons, too great a cost.

That is fair.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
They are now free to come to that decision, of course, what they are learning is that with freedom comes responsibility. In time, with our assistance they will come to exercise that responsibility in a moral way.

And if things go wrong, it was because they didn't act responsibly, not because the whole notion was fucked-up to start with, like some of us said.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
The word would be "Bilmore is too big an asshole to listen to what anyone is saying." . . . I suppose I should tell you to go fuck yourself along with Spanky.

You still don't handle all of this well, do you?